Every other person with an education in physics who I have ever seen discuss this guy's work, considers it silly. The dude doesn't even really know anything about math. And the award, really isn't one. Not truly peer reviewed in any legitimate sense, either.
@RealityGrapple Hmmm ... of course, the Unified Field Theory paper he developed with Elizabeth Rauscher, as well as this paper, are now available through the American Institute of Physics.
Look, here's what's difficult to wrap your head around: This and its parent theory are based on the conception that energy and mass are the same thing, just in different states of permutation. The "vacuum density" is the inverse of the mass of Universe.
@EternalRecursion no, that's not it. sorry, im not a physicist, but no, the critiques i've read aren't about that, and even I understand the mass/energy thing.
google around. look for critics. there's tons. his mistakes seem to be basic and voluminous.
My instinct says "fail"...because he used graphics that don't have anything to do with his crap...Keplerian solids, that so-called "Fibinacci number" horseshit where you see spirals in seashells and sunflowers. He's puting us on. Good thing he's not a creationist
@AlienScientist Lmao...its funny how you explained the relation between mass, volume and density in, relatively, a lot of detail and yet didn't mention anything about the "quantum vacuum density" and the other complex parts. I tried searching for it online but I can't find anything that confirms it. I would appreciate it if you took the time to explain the more complex parts of this vid in more detail. The equations for calculating gravity, its pull and the time period is as far as I go.
so in dumbed down english...what does it mean? lol im into science and even i couldnt keep focused on all the numbers...so would help if you had a "what does this mean" at the end lol
For scientists general universe only what is visible. But to me universe has two stages visible and non visible. I start stumble when came to non visible part of the universe. Imagine no instrument will show you non visible part of the universe it is more of common sense. Only human mind has ability to see non visible part of the universe. But how can you calculate when you cannot measure? And non visible part of the universe plays the biggest role for existing part.
Nassim it seems to me you are very smart man would you joint me for we open the doors of the universe for all humanity. I know lot more then than any scientists when come about true function of the universe. But I feel it is too much for me to handle alone to write math equations what I know you haven't learn in the schools or universities. it is easy to start from someone else work and go on but is not easy start from scratch check my channel you will have clue what I know.
@EternalRecursion im talking about the comments everywhere ,we are not scientists , are we ? Also , i don't wanna debate on youtube , This is not a debate site lol
@djay00009 "people who are not even famous scientists" Right now, very few people know the names Nassim Haramein, Elizabeth Rauscher, Garrett Lisi, Frank Znidarsik or Jeremy Rys, yet each of these individuals, working in various collaborative relationships and alone, are deriving mathematical theories and proofs that answer major questions in the field of Quantum Relativity. Who knew Einstein before 1905? "This is not a debate site lol" It CAN be a discussion and dissemination site.
@EternalRecursion Do you have any idea what i said?I am not talking a person who wrote these papers , I am not talking about a well known person who is working towards his field,I am talkig about people(common people on youtube who are not researchers,not scientists) they comment like they know everything , people like you , and me , people of youtube many times comment and debate like they know better than person on who wrote this paper . R u getting what i mean or are you really stupid ?
@djay00009 I think you're saying the people posting here are not qualified to comment. I disagree. Having a reasonably sophisticated knowledge of mathematics and physics, I can read scientific papers and check references. Others posting here are physics teachers, researchers or other amateurs (in the true meaning of the word) who are interested in exchanging ideas.
"I am definitely gonna loose all hopes in humanity" I think you mean "lose"?
I see truly where scientists round glob got confused! Can you say most important part in humans are the heart, the rest of the body part are useless. Obviously not because heart is functions with help of other body parts. This is what every scientists did in the past and they still doing the same thing today. Atoms do have neutrons electrons plus it has energy clouds beside protons and all they function in harmony hand to hand. Think about that?
@Levon9404 The point of Haramein's theory is to explain how the proton, a composite structure comprised of charge points that have no discernible size and exist for < nanosecond when released from the proton dynamic by particle collision, can have a measurable size and a stable half life experimentally determined to be a trillion trillion times greater than the known age of Universe, AND form the foundational constituent of discernible structure in an energy continuum we call existence.
@AlienScientist W8, but doesn't it give more credibility to Bob Lazar since he has said that Strong Force is actually a gravitational force? When was this discovered?
The mass of the Physical Universe inside the volume of a Proton? And that all Protons are like this? What renormalizes everything? I've heard strange things that are 'The standard model'... This is definitely over the top!
@granddad2002 First, think of mass as a force, the compliment of gravity. In a continuum of information we call Universe, form, structure and relationship are the result of particles of light interacting with waves of matter, communicating differentiation to conscious apprehension. All of existence is radiance curved into whorls of stable, self-referential points which define "this and that" by thresholds of diffraction and reflection. So, if mass is radiance (E/C^2), there is no limit ...
@granddad2002 ... of "size" to which mass can be reduced. There are, however, empirical facts that have emerged from the human study of material existence and one of those is Plank's Constant. A Plank Particle, "is a hypothetical particle defined as a tiny black hole whose Compton wavelength is comparable to its Schwarzschild radius." "the Planck particle would be extremely small (its radius being equal to the Planck length, which is about 10−20 times the proton's radius) ...
@granddad2002 ... and heavy (the Planck mass being 10^19 times the proton's mass)." Haramein theorizes an infinitesimal at the center of each proton, which provides the energy, via vacuum, to drive a double torus dynamic that results in a stable black hole. Drawing upon Hawking's theory explained in "A Brief History of Time," Haramein theorizes an event horizon at which the boundary of the proton dynamic differentiates from the contiguous field of information we call existence.
@granddad2002 Haramein and Elizabeth Rauscher have worked out the mathematics of such a stable black hole by incorporating spin into the equations, the double torus model giving the C^2 divisor necessary to the relativistic relationship. This theory of the proton is a derivation of a more inclusive theory that unites Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.
@granddad2002 "What renormalizes everything?" David Bohm called it "The implicate order." Max Planck said, "We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." I say, reality is a hologram and the entire dynamic of existence is contained within each proton, each proton being a harmonic resonator of the field matrix of this radiant continuum.
@MrGlape The video is an overview of a new theory of the structure of the proton. This theory is a derivation of a larger theory in which the mathematics of quantum dynamics are unified with the mathematics of Relativity by employing spin and the Coriolis Effect in the calculations. This theory provides a model of the proton which unites all the scales of energy dynamic in Universe, and solves a number of previously unsolved issues of physics.
The reason why the electron does not spiral into the nucleus is the repulsion from pauli exlcusion principle prevents two identical fermions from sharing the same space the same is true about the strong nuclear force between the protons.
So maybe the black Swartzchild proton, with mass + 8.85 E 11 kg closes space-time into a black singularity, whereas its polar opposite, a white Swartzchild proton, with mass just under - 8.85 E 11 kg ( note negative mass ) opens it again, forming a black ---> white form of wormhole or Einstein - Rosen bridge. The sum of the two hugely positive and hugely negative masses add to the tiny, standard, accepted proton mass ??? The traditional Physics and Chemistry still holds under this scenario ?
Note I have used SI units, below, with masses in kg, rather than c.g.s. units. I think we should stick with SI units. I also think the word "centrifugal force" in Nassim's paper, should be replaced by "centripetal force".
So maybe the black Swartzchild proton, with mass + 8.85 E 14 closes space-time into a black singularity, whereas its polar opposite, a white Swartzchild proton, with mass just under - 8.85 E 14 ( note negative mass ) opens it again, forming a black ---> white form of wormhole or Einstein - Rosen bridge. The sum of the two hugely positive and hugely negative masses add to the tiny, standard, accepted proton mass ??? The traditional Physics and Chemistry still holds under this scenario ?
@rijkent55 I agree. To clarify, the "polar opposite" should probably be called the vector opposite, the black hole proton being the inversion of the white hole field which is the wave structure of reality.
@EternalRecursion : So you're saying that the energy stored in the white hole field is such that its (NEGATIVE ) equivalence mass, M_whf = E_whf / c^2 , is such that M_whf + M_Swartzchild_proton = standard, accepted mass of proton ? This subject is not my forte, so hopefully my way of attempting to understand it in terms I am familiar with, might also agree with your understanding ??
@rijkent55 "So you're saying that the energy stored in the white hole field ..." No, I'm saying the energy propagating as something differentiable in a continuous and contiguous field of information is the horizon of the proton event, the "white hole". I am saying that most of the mass, "its (NEGATIVE ) equivalence mass, M_whf = E_whf / c^2" is manifesting as a) the information that COMPRISES the medium we call existence and b) the eternal stability of that informational structure.
@rijkent55 The proton is eternal, with an experimentally determined minimal half-life of 6.6 X 10^35 years, more than a trillion trillion times the observed age of Universe. Each proton is a harmonic resonator of the field matrix of existence, containing within its field the entirety of all the wave modulations that form the informational construct of the One, the Singular, Universe. The measured mass of the proton is a constant, like C and h; it is the inertial interactive constant of form.
If the mass of the black Schwartzchild proton, was somehow balanced by a white Schwartzchild proton to give the overall effective mass of the accepted proton mass, then the theory would not upset the apple cart for well established Science. Maybe these two Schwartzchild protons would form some kind of wormhole topology, with the black one connecting with the white one. My attempts at the Maths of reconciling this has been unsuccessful, & I have deleted those posts, because they don't make sense.
Having said that I love strange loop topologies, the idea of a "fractal type" of Universe / Multiverse, some of Wolfram's ideas, Garrett Lisi's etc etc. The Maths presented is an interesting play with numbers and Physics, much of it established classical Physics. I see no reason why a proton should necessarily lie on the same log/log graph as cosmically sized objects, although I can understand the appeal that it might be so, with the atom is a "miniature galaxy"; the Macrocosm/microcosm idea.
The quotient of the Schwartzchild proton mass / accepted proton mass is 8.85 E 14 g / 1.67 E (-24) g , which I shall call beta, being 5.3 E 38 . Now everything in standard Chemistry / Physics would have to be upscaled by beta, surely ? So one would increase molar mass by approximately beta for every element and compound, one would increase energy in Einsteins equation delta E = delta m c^2 by beta , even the mass of the entire Universe by about beta. This cannot be correct, surely ?
Note to uploader, you might want to mention his paper passed peer review and was published by the American Institute of Physics theresonanceproject(dot)org/blog/?p=179
Fascinating video, thanks for making it. I like the spiral representation of the Periodic Table, which I have seen before, amongst other items that I haven't. Just wondering : How would one use this model would to satisfactorily explain Rutherford's experiment with Gold foil and Alpha particles, which is taught at high school level (?). I'm just not sure how one would do even that ? On the Macro(cosmic) scale, colliding black holes coalesce to form even bigger ones.
@rijkent55 "On the Macro(cosmic) scale, colliding black holes coalesce to form even bigger ones." I have found only one reference from 2002 to VLA identified realigned radio-jet galaxy signatures, that the astronomers involved speculate as indications of black holes merging. Not much to go on.
@rijkent55 "How would one use this model would to satisfactorily explain Rutherford's experiment with Gold foil and Alpha particles?" In a Brief History of Time, Hawking introduces the idea of the event horizon of the black hole as an infinitesimal boundary differentiating inside from outside, the black hole radiating energy at levels beyond our ability to measure. In a like way, Haramein postulates a "white hole" radiant manifestation of the black hole proton, thus defining its boundary.
Protons are harmonic resonators of the holographic Universe: We may deconstruct pieces of reality for purposes of analysis, but REALITY is of a design, a matrix of energy dynamics that together comprise the SpaceTime continuum and the dynamic of evolution called Life, which includes the sensory response mechanisms and the sentient analysis of Itself. The Schwartzschild Proton model allows the mass of Universe to be contained within it as an informational map, the DNA of Universe.
The double torus dynamic of the Schwartzschild Proton model provides a mathematically coherent model of a stable black hole dynamic, fueled by the collapse of energy into the infinitesimal as the mirror inversion of the everything-expanding-away-from-everything-else inflation of Universe. As such, the Schwartzschild Proton is the perfect frictionless ball bearing, building material form on the most fundamental geometric principles of triangulation and tetrahedral agglomeration.
I watched a bit of his video concerning the sungrazing comet in February 2003, and it's clear that he knows almost nothing about astronomy. If his physics is as bad as his astronomy, he's just another crackpo
@Juandiegodiverso "Nassim is Fake. He is not human. He is an alien jajajaja" Well, engaging in ad hominem abuse via bizarre and ludicrous accusations may seem to you as somehow meaningful, but I don't see how your non-sequitur applies to discussing this or related theories.
@Juandiegodiverso Please show me one academically or industrially employed physicist who doesn't "want money". Near as I can tell, they all expect big salaries, hope to win lucrative prizes, sell many books and get fat lecture fees, for their efforts.
@Juandiegodiverso "his theories are false theories." Please provide a mathematical refutation of the theory "Spinors, Twistors, Quaternions, and the “Spacetime” Torus Topology" by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.
ok. spinors are not an angular momentum because the particles rotate. This is an error.
No hay forma en la que pueda explicar la abominación de masa que le mete al protón para satisfacer su capricho de que sea un agujero negro. No conforme con eso, se queda ahí, sin decir nada respecto del resto de las partículas subatómicas, que de esta manera quedarían inalteradas, aún cuando la chanchada que hizo con el protón requiera reformular absolutamente todo
@Juandiegodiverso "the mass of the protton is wrong." Too cryptic a statement; please elaborate or expand. Are you referring to the mass of the proton as measured inertial interaction of 1.6726 x 10^ -27 kg, or the mass of the proton as equal to mass of Universe?
@Juandiegodiverso "the mass of the protton is wrong." Too cryptic a statement; please elaborate or expand. Are you referring to the mass of the proton as measured inertial interaction of 1.6726 x 10^ -27 kg, or the mass of the proton as equal to mass of Universe?
A question. How is it that there is absolutely no support from any part of the scientific community for any of Nassim's ideas, talks, or research? None of his papers have been published in any scientific journal – certainly not one subject to proper peer review. Scientists seem to either treat him as a crank or dismiss him altogether
@Juandiegodiverso "None of his papers have been published in any scientific journal – certainly not one subject to proper peer review." The Schwartzschild Proton paper is now available through the American Institute of Physics.
@Juandiegodiverso ... Whenever I read stupid comments like the one you posted I go to the ytuber's channels and see what they have to uploaded or favored.
You have NOTHING slightly scientific either uploaded or as a favorite. Given your abundant interest in the subject (LOL) you find yourself qualified as the supreme expert critic of cutting edge physic, huh?
"expert words" "I watched a bit of his video concerning the sungrazing comet in February 2003, and it's clear that he knows almost nothing about astronomy. If his physics is as bad as his astronomy, he's just another crackpo"
when you read the wording, it's clear that it was awarded for best paper presented in that category at a single computing systems conference; and that the 'peer reviewers' who awarded it were just the other people on the conference. Most people understand peer review to mean something quite different.
Nassim often talks about geometries or field equations or things of mathematical significance. Yet watching videos of him presenting ideas, it's painfully clear that he is clueless when it comes to pretty basic mathematics.
His theory gives the mass of the proton as 885 million tonnes when it's straightforward to measure that it's 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram.His theory predicts a force between the protons in a nucleus of 7.49 x 10^47 dynes, which is also many many orders of magnitude larger than what is measured.
@Juandiegodiverso "His theory gives the mass of the proton as 885 million tonnes when it's straightforward to measure that it's 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram." On the latter part, we have the deflection force of a proton in a magnetic field. However, the containment energy of the proton dynamic is vastly greater, as the experiments of super particle accelerators demonstrate. We know that the proton is a dynamic action, yet it appears to be eternal. Containment energy = mass.
Haramein says, "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." True words indeed! The numbers Haramein gives in his Schwarzschild Proton paper aren't remotely plausible. Furthermore they can be very easily 'tested', i.e. compared directly to the real world, without using any fancy physics at all, as I will illustrate.
He addresses the discrepancy here, about 90% of the way down. He points out that he has already explained it in his paper using the centrifugal force, and he berates me for not having read it. As it happens, I did read it (the paper is only a few pages long, after all). I didn't bother to discuss it because it doesn't change anything.
I raised many other fundamental issues with his theories, for example his claim that there is an event horizon around a proton (a region from which no light or particles can emerge, especially if this event horizon is somehow immune to rapid decay as protons clearly are). This is contradicted by the fact that we can clearly observe the proton's internal structure. Haramein hasn't responded to this at all.
@Juandiegodiverso "This is contradicted by the fact that we can clearly observe the proton's internal structure." Although you have raised a few points worth addressing, this statement is so EXTREMELY wrong, that it is mind numbing. The internal structure and dynamics of the proton remain purely speculative, with competing theoretical models proposed to explain the observed phenomena when the proton is subjected to various experiments.
@julz1278 I am well aware of the critics and critiques of Haramein and his video presentations. Almost all the criticisms are of his statements or "misstatements" of physics, or at least how physics is currently presented in academia. When I watch these videos, what I see repeatedly is Haramein explaining how he came to be a rogue in this effort to understand the basic structures and systems of existence, and he is often quite unrestrained in his disdain for the conventions of intellectual ..
@julz1278 ... safety embraced by the majority of academics in their group think. That he makes an occasional statement that is free in its usage, such as, "The first law of physics" or is not within the accepted paradigm of those who make substantial incomes by feeding the research grant/tuition generation/technological profit machine, like, "Reality is sub-divisions of space" is of little concern to me. No one has offered a meaningful challenge to the theoretical papers on his website.
@julz1278 That his theories may stand the physics world on its head is not a valid challenge. I repeat, NO ONE has offered an analytical, mathematical challenge to these theories. I refer specifically to the papers co-authored with Elizabeth Rauscher (who has all the academic credentials you could ask for). As for the specific sub-theory of the proton as a stable black hole, I am prepared to argue in defense of that theory. The proton is an ACTION, not a billiard ball. Haramein has offered ...
@julz1278 ... the only complete theory of a stable wave-particle identity comprised of nanosecond duration, invisible sub-components that leave high energy wakes in recording fields when said stable wave particle is annihilated through super high energy collisions. Other than these annihilations, the proton appears to all analysis to be eternal, with a theoretical half-life of 6.3 x 10^35 years, or a trillion, trillion, trillion times longer than the known age of Universe.
@julz1278 And yet, the proton is a composite structure which, based upon the hypothetical size of the constituant quarks, gluons, etcetera, is, like everything else, 99.9999% space. I know you guys like to think you have everything figured out and it's just a matter of time before you have all the answers, but maybe Haramein is the one who sees farther and with greater clarity. Check out R. Buckminster Fuller's theories or C. Donald Briddell's Field Structure Theory.
Themen: Einheitsfeldtheorie, die heilige Geometrie, Atlantis und Lemuria, verschollene Hochkulturen, verbotene Archäologie, Funde die es nicht geben dürfte
Redner: Nassim Haramein, Dr. Heinrich Kruparz, Klaus Dona, Kurt Schneider
Kartenvorbestellung unter: info@hesper-verlag.de oder 0681 - 83 19 043
Personally, I am much more interested in this proton theory and the implications that just freak out the material objectivists. I am one who asserts that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics together reveal an aspect of reality that transcends the material, what David Bohm called the "implicate order". R.B.Fuller pointed out that mathematics and physical PRINCIPLES are meta-physical, discernible to mind but not physical - you can't find math under a rock or see it through a telescope.
Yet, there are critics of Haramein who attack him specifically because of these meta-physical implications in his theory. I find it rather off-putting that, despite the observations that human activity is infinitesimally small when compared to only the neighboring cosmos, and that there appears to be essentially unlimited opportunity to learn and discover, the thought of there being a Transcendent aspect to existence is cited as automatically invalidating anything.
I suggest giving a look at Stephen Wolfram's book, a New Kind of Science. It deals with natural systems progressing into high complexity according to simple rule sets. Very much related to what is being discussed here! I'm more dubious about the implications that you seem to make at the end of the video, but I'm willing to hear things out as the evidence supports.
@AlienScientist Merry Christmas! I think that his claims at the end of the book are rather unsupported, as I've heard people from those fields completely shoot him down on it. But with some more work, it could really become an interesting addition to math and chaos theory!
@speedysavant, Yeah I haven't gotten that far yet but what I have seen so far is interesting and I like how he is so straight forward in describing his though process of how he discovered all the patterns and rules.
I really liked how he showed those cone snail shells which had almost identical patterns to the ones he generated with simple linear arrays. I think it could help explain genetic coding since DNA is kind of like a linear array. It certainly appears to describe natural patterns.
@AlienScientist DNA isn't a linear array - that's one of the most common misinterpretations of it. It's a *lot* more complicated, as I am led to believe. For example, a gene can be active or inactive depending on how the DNA is "kinked" as it coils around the nucleosomes, or can express differently depending on what's near it. It's not as straightforward as a code, though it can still be simulated, obviously. That's one part of the science that Wolfram really needs to look into. Still good tho:)
@speedysavant I haven't read Wolfram's book (yet) and, although I understand from the context that you are making reference to pattern propagation and its applicability to this theory of the proton, my understanding of the new field of epigenetics is that the amino acid sheath that surrounds the DNA is a dynamic structure that learns and modifies with life experience, passing on behavioral traits aquired from the parent's experience. It is reported to be FAR more complex than DNA.
@EternalRecursion To my understanding of epigenetics, the various nuclear structures outside of DNA itself affect which DNA sequences are active or inactive, being part of the process that allows cell differentiation. Prions and other interesting oddities can arise too; it's neat stuff! But I've never hard of it acquiring experience. Do you have any references?
@speedysavant Well, this isn't an area of knowledge to which I have devoted much attention, but I have thought for years that DNA must be adaptive, that that was the only explanation for a lot of things. I then read an article (waiting in a dentist's office) in some pop science magazine (don't remember which) that epigenetics arose from population studies indicating an adaptive, learning aspect of genetics. That"s really all I've got. Of course, Net searches would show a great deal.
@AlienScientist Ive been saying this all along, a subatomic singularity gives the mass and gives the quantum entanglement effect to all matter in BEC state or field. Where EMF shows observable time.
This paper is now part of the American Institute of Physics (see the AIP site proceedings 1303). Which means that it is now searchable by university students. This is great news since the new ideas in it will permeate into the establishment. Whoever you are, you should think twice before dismissing this paper.
The thing that i don't get is why is the presence of the golden ratio evidence for a replication. Sure you can find self replicating systems with this ratio but you can also find other systems with different ratios. I think that this is some sort of non-sequitur.
kFrederking: Whereas you state, "I haven't read the paper you mention, and Given what I have already seen (several hours of presentations), I don't think I will." I have watched very little of Haramein's lectures, choosing instead to read his papers co-authored with Elizabeth Rauscher. It strikes me as the quintessential irony that you attack his style of presentation and possible linguistic errors, and on that basis judge his papers without reading them.
This sort of attitude of conceded ignorance and violent resistance to new ideas is a common theme among the "scientific" community. They don't understand the tricks of concealment that lie within disclosure. For everything that is shown, something else is hidden. And for all this is shown to us through mathematics and science, we still in the end rely on human opinions for our notion of acceptance, credibility, and truth...
@AlienScientist His peer reviewers are in actuallity not scientists... this should make you think twice, as you seem to profile yourself as the cartesian thinker :> I love a lot of your work on youtube, so i hope you can accept this criticism.
Actually read & cross check his 'research', don't only listen to his lectures. He's amazing at giving lectures and making things sound plausible ^^ Yet, his results... well, a bit less impressive :p
@AlienScientist The visible universe is a dimension of time and space, within a Bose Einstein Condensate state. The vacuum of space represents and should be equal to the energy in the universe as it is a side effect or bi-product of energy itself. The singularity should have no vacuum as it is matter at rest and its event horizon allows frequency to maintain its observable time or the illusion of solidity or mass, around it. The singularity is the Higgs field or God particle.
No, sorry, I haven't read the paper you mention, and Given what I have already seen (several hours of presentations), I don't think I will.
If you can't follow Haramein's maths, then there are only two things you can do: Believe them (which is the 'religious' approach), or ask someone who can. If you don't believe me, find someone you know who has studied physics (and I don't mean wikipedia lookups), and ask her or him, if vacuum has Planck density, or whatever statement you want checked.
I haven't watched any of Nassim's lectures, instead I chose to attend an event where he spoke about the Schwarzschild Proton and I got to meet and talk with him personally about it. I then read his paper on the Schwarzschild Proton and rather hastily slapped together a video on it.
Kinda funny how you are commenting on a paper you've never read... I'd rather talk to someone who has actually read the paper, than listen to someone's un-informed opinion.
"Uninformed opinion" coming from a gullible layman, following a delusional dilettante, addressing a physicist with experience in particle physics, is rather funny.
Good luck with further messages via crop circles. Since you haven't addressed one single point of factual criticism I posted here, I assume you can't. Which makes this exchange pointless - so I'm out, and leave it to our readers here to judge whether the physics community is right, or one self proclaimed guru + fans.
What factual criticism have you posted other than the Planck -Phi thing? Which BTW I added annotations correcting that mistake a week after I posted the video...
You've openly stated that you haven't read the paper... I understand most of the content is discussed in this video, but still where are your criticisms? Your attitude reflects that of the physics community, which is one of conceded and willful ignorance that is resistant to paradigm shifts.
@kFrederking I recognize that Haramein repeatedly makes comments like, "I then realized ..." and references information from previous research or theories without citing the source. I have no idea if it is his intention to lay claim to the work of others or if he just considers that it would be too disruptive to his presentation to continuously break the flow. I have on occasion made initial comments to the affect that I will be presenting ideas I learned from others but embrace to the ...
... degree that I consider them my own truths and will not continuously cite the sources, that said sources can be made available upon request. Is that what Haramein is doing? I don't know.
As for: "Haramein's knowledge of physics is on average high school level, at best" Have you looked at the paper by Haramein and Rauscher, "Spinors, Twistors, Quarternions, And The "Spacetime" Torus Topology"? SOMEBODY has a pretty advanced knowledge of the theories and mathematics of the topic.
Additionally: "chain of figments" It is a recognized approach to any theoretical construct to use established ideas or givens to build a coherent model. I do not see the extraction of the mass of the universe as a trick, I see it as the obvious result of the given he first sets. You may assert that Haramein is rigging the game by choosing his given; I would rejoin that it seems obvious that he looked for correspondences that would fit and support his conception.
You will find formula (2b) at 44seconds into the clip, with the sole difference, that the index to the density "PC" has been replaced by "ν" (ny).
This is the first formula used in the "theory". For practically every other "surprising" step in his change of figments, I could do a similar deconstruction. I certainly won't. If the answers the crop circles give are better than those of established physics, then it's the audience's problem, not mine.
Let me make this completely clear: Haramein's knowledge of physics is on average high school level, at best - and that only if one doesn't hold his errors and mistakes against him. Actually, he's doing quite a lot of damage to respectable science, and I hope his audience stays small.
Haramein has plucked the figure he bases his whole theory on from a completely different context. He invents a new term, and borrows a figure from a different theory - which he doesn't cite or credit - a figure conveniently already containing the mass of the universe, and then extracts, that figure with some simple number tricks.
I could ask you to believe me, instead of the charlatan, but I can do better. I cite my source:
Actually, the conference wasn't about quantum computing, but about anticipatory systems, which is a branch of artificial intelligence. A branch that has strong ties to business and economics, some to biology. No peers for physical theories to be found there. Anyway, how authentic that praise is isn't my main concern. The "peer review" is, of course, an invention. No physicist has ever graced that paper with an "aye".
As for the "vacuum density": I may not have made it sufficiently clear.
P.S.: What I forgot to mention is, that it doesn't take much to arrive at "this is also the mass of the entire universe", if you insert that mass into the calculation by including it in a fancy constant, before doing some sleight-of-hand multiplications to re-extract it.
... About now, it should be obvious, that someone making such basic errors (assuming it's not fraud, like the "peer review" likely is) wouldn't pass a beginners exam in college level physics.
... The estimates for the density of (hypothetical) vacuum energy currently differ by more than 120 orders of magnitude [!!!], so giving it with an accuracy of three decimals is already a fake-giveaway.
Where this number comes from is a completely different model, that of a primordial universe compressed in a very small, but non-singular volume.
It is the exact opposite of a "quantum vacuum": All the mass/energy of our universe, contained in a sphere of about 5x10^-34 cm radius.
@kFrederking "The estimates for the density of (hypothetical) vacuum energy currently differ by more than 120 orders of magnitude [!!!], so giving it with an accuracy of three decimals is already a fake-giveaway."
So, you are saying that Haramein choosing a value that comes from "a completely different model, that of a primordial universe compressed in a very small, but non-singular volume" which falls within the hypothetical range for "the density of vacuum energy," used by Haramein ...
... as a given, "The quantum vacuum density is given as rho sub v = 5.16 x 10^93 gm/cm^3" constitutes "a fake-giveaway" "assuming it's not fraud"? Using a given, that falls within the estimates, in order to create a coherent model constitutes fakery or fraud?
The "peer review" was at a conference on quantum computing held at the University of Liege, so, yes, it was NOT a prize from the University, but from the Conference.
Nassim is so fascinated by the beauty of those conclusions that fit, that he doesn't even start to question those that are pure conjecture.
He certainly has the intelligence to build a model of reality (though not necessarily a unified field theory), but he lacks the self-criticism to do so in a constructive process by learning from errors.
Btw: I couldn't find mentioning a peer review anywhere but on his own sites. And the certificate is not from the University of Liege.
I in no way say that all he says is wrong. Nassim has a fairly good grasp of basic physical and mathematical principles, but he lacks a healthy amount of scepticism with regard to his own conclusions. Which means that he starts making assumptions from some half-understood concepts (he clearly misunderstood vacuum energy), introducing additional logical errors, until finally, the whole is a building, or rather cloud castle, with no connection to a foundation.
Since I can't post a direct link here, Google this:
(PART 1) Nassim Haramein at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library. 2003
and watch the video from 1h55m on.
I could point out the numerous fallacies in his "theory", but I guess that show will show even the layman in Physics what to think of "octagonal vacuum structure".
hmm interesting... This video was on the paper that Nassim Published on the Schwarzschild Proton. I thought it was an interesting idea (and still do to some extent) I can't comment on every claim Nassim has ever made, I have found numerous flaws myself. Doesn't mean that everything he has ever said is wrong. He does lack formal education and training that would help with some of the bad connections he makes, like the Plank Length somehow being related to Phi.
@kFrederking "he starts making assumptions from some half-understood concepts (he clearly misunderstood vacuum energy)," "I could point out the numerous fallacies in his "theory", but I guess that show will show even the layman in Physics what to think of "octagonal vacuum structure"."
I took your recommendation to watch the video, beginning at 1h55m and I think you misunderstood the context of the words "octagonal vacuum structure." First, I suspect that Nassim meant to say octahedral ...
... rather than octagon, as he was presenting the tetrahedral frequency extensions of fundamental structural dynamics, saying that the outside must have an inside, the outside being radiative projection Isotropic Vector Equilibrium in the form of the dodecahedron and the inside being a retreating projection as the complimentary octahedron.
Haramein has clearly developed his ideas from predecessors including Buckminster Fuller, who developed his own ideas from experiments with ...
... "closest packing of spheres". Fuller recognized that atoms manifest as spherical structures which align in tetrahedral coordination. But more than that, Fuller developed his own ideas of geodesics to identify the tetrahedron as the fundamental first form and in geodetic geometry, the sphere contains all the great circles of the platonic solids. Essentially, as without, so within.
I agree with your suggestion that Haramein is so enthusiastic about presenting the beauty of all the ...
... interconnections he sees that he oversimplifies many of the numerous pieces of information he is presenting, but I suspect he is more concerned with expanding the numbers of people who can see these interconnections than he is with presenting the arcana of his mathematics. After all, the papers are on line for any and all who wish to read them to do so.
I do not know, have not met and have no vested or financial interest in Nassim Haramein, but I think you are incorrect in saying ...
... "he clearly misunderstood vacuum energy". Having spent a great deal of time over the past year discussing, thinking about and researching information pertinent to Haramein's theories, I am convinced that he is on to something significant; if he doesn't have THE Unified Field Theory, I think he has much of it. His Schwartzschild Proton model is a special theory of his general theory and is, therefore, neither a complete theory nor meant to be.
My comment wasn't so much about octagonal or octahedral, but about crop circles verifying his theory.
I'm actually a physicist, no longer by trade, but by college education. I have studied at DESY, which admittedly isn't as impressive as the LHC is today, but even without having a unified field theory ready, I think my grasp of fundamental particle physics, QFT, and GR are quite good. And they are in no way in line with many of the statements made by Haramein.
And what? The number of errors is far to great to roll them out in a thread like this, but I will give you an example, starting right at the beginning of the clip above:
What Haramein calls the "Quantum vacuum density" and numbers at 5.16x10^93 g/cm³ is his own invention. The term may sound similar to zero point energy, or vacuum energy, mixed with "probability density" for quantum fluctuations, but it is completely bogus. ...
What has the Planck length got to do with the golden Ratio? They are completely different numbers. The similarity between their first 3 decimals only applies in the base 10 number system.
Yes absolutely nothing. It intrigued me when I first heard it, and made this video. But after thinking about it I realized that one is dimensionless and the other a length and they have nothing to do with one another. I have also pointed this out to Nassim Haramein so he regrets making that association. I noticed he does that a lot. Tries to connect things in some profound way to awe his audience. I appreciate his work nonetheless, especially this theory.
@AlienScientist time nd space is gods trick.....all theories to date are mistakes and dont mean a thing.....we have to think outside the parameters of space and time...it does not matter how small a thing is cos it can be divided into half for ever and ever...
Yes, I mentioned this to Nassim and showed him the errors in his "analysis" of the Planck Length having a relation to a unit-less ratio. This was only an added note that caught my attention during Nassim's Lecture more out of peculiarity and curiosity than anything else, mention of it has been edited out of the final submission to the AIP.
@AlienScientist I've been too busy to get my energy up for replying to kFrederking, whose last post, referring to you as a "gullible layman," makes it clear that people like kFrederking prefer willful ignorance rather than addressing anything that challenges their ego-maniacal self absorption. Oh well. I've been reading the LEX book on Quantum Mechanics, getting up to speed on wave mechanics, but I am ready to have a bulletin board dialogue with anyone who wants to explore how this theory ...
... is CORRECT. As Michael Faraday would have us do, as Einstein did in his book on relativity, Hawking with "A Brief History of Time" and R.B.Fuller with the two volume "Synergetics", we CAN discuss this without the mathematics. I welcome anyone who wants to have a DIALOGUE and not make pronouncements like, "I'm a particle physicist and therefore you should surrender your judgment to my authority." Remember, Einstein could not understand deBroglie's wave mechanics!
I got a good Idea of what was being explained and it makes more sense to me then most other theories. I'm no mathmatician but the concept is facinating and it does answer one of my first questions of when I was a child. Why do atoms look like solor systems. The question at the end of this video is asking How and why Does what the proton replicate itself??? Until people realize that size has no relevance that may be answered i
Every other person with an education in physics who I have ever seen discuss this guy's work, considers it silly. The dude doesn't even really know anything about math. And the award, really isn't one. Not truly peer reviewed in any legitimate sense, either.
He's a fraud.
RealityGrapple 1 week ago
@RealityGrapple Hmmm ... of course, the Unified Field Theory paper he developed with Elizabeth Rauscher, as well as this paper, are now available through the American Institute of Physics.
Look, here's what's difficult to wrap your head around: This and its parent theory are based on the conception that energy and mass are the same thing, just in different states of permutation. The "vacuum density" is the inverse of the mass of Universe.
EternalRecursion 1 week ago
@EternalRecursion no, that's not it. sorry, im not a physicist, but no, the critiques i've read aren't about that, and even I understand the mass/energy thing.
google around. look for critics. there's tons. his mistakes seem to be basic and voluminous.
peace
RealityGrapple 1 week ago
Limited individual fractal experience is replicating itself.
conquerorofbabylon 3 weeks ago
Time will tell but I, I like this.
Einheitskreis 1 month ago
My instinct says "fail"...because he used graphics that don't have anything to do with his crap...Keplerian solids, that so-called "Fibinacci number" horseshit where you see spirals in seashells and sunflowers. He's puting us on. Good thing he's not a creationist
bryanttillman 1 month ago
@AlienScientist Lmao...its funny how you explained the relation between mass, volume and density in, relatively, a lot of detail and yet didn't mention anything about the "quantum vacuum density" and the other complex parts. I tried searching for it online but I can't find anything that confirms it. I would appreciate it if you took the time to explain the more complex parts of this vid in more detail. The equations for calculating gravity, its pull and the time period is as far as I go.
hesaidthefollowing 1 month ago
i was unable to understand the video from 0:00 to 4:15
any one else?
superSupersaurabh 2 months ago
so in dumbed down english...what does it mean? lol im into science and even i couldnt keep focused on all the numbers...so would help if you had a "what does this mean" at the end lol
jabzilla21 2 months ago
@AlienScientist The 'best paper' was NOT awarded by the Universite of Liege itself, but by CASYS which simply used its grounds to host the event!
please correct, as this presents a distorted image of reality.
SilveradoNL 3 months ago
@SilveradoNL, Thanks for the correction, I have added an annotation to the video.
I am looking for more knowledgeable people to provide their input on this topic on the AlienScientist Discussion forums. (First link in description).
AlienScientist 3 months ago
Comment removed
Levon9404 4 months ago
For scientists general universe only what is visible. But to me universe has two stages visible and non visible. I start stumble when came to non visible part of the universe. Imagine no instrument will show you non visible part of the universe it is more of common sense. Only human mind has ability to see non visible part of the universe. But how can you calculate when you cannot measure? And non visible part of the universe plays the biggest role for existing part.
Levon9404 4 months ago
Nassim it seems to me you are very smart man would you joint me for we open the doors of the universe for all humanity. I know lot more then than any scientists when come about true function of the universe. But I feel it is too much for me to handle alone to write math equations what I know you haven't learn in the schools or universities. it is easy to start from someone else work and go on but is not easy start from scratch check my channel you will have clue what I know.
Levon9404 4 months ago
its Always funny how so many people whoa re not even famous scientists think they know everything
djay00009 4 months ago
@djay00009 Would you be so kind as to explain your statement?
EternalRecursion 4 months ago
@EternalRecursion im talking about the comments everywhere ,we are not scientists , are we ? Also , i don't wanna debate on youtube , This is not a debate site lol
djay00009 4 months ago
@djay00009 "people who are not even famous scientists" Right now, very few people know the names Nassim Haramein, Elizabeth Rauscher, Garrett Lisi, Frank Znidarsik or Jeremy Rys, yet each of these individuals, working in various collaborative relationships and alone, are deriving mathematical theories and proofs that answer major questions in the field of Quantum Relativity. Who knew Einstein before 1905? "This is not a debate site lol" It CAN be a discussion and dissemination site.
EternalRecursion 4 months ago
@EternalRecursion Do you have any idea what i said?I am not talking a person who wrote these papers , I am not talking about a well known person who is working towards his field,I am talkig about people(common people on youtube who are not researchers,not scientists) they comment like they know everything , people like you , and me , people of youtube many times comment and debate like they know better than person on who wrote this paper . R u getting what i mean or are you really stupid ?
djay00009 4 months ago
@EternalRecursion If you still do not understand what i mean , I am definitely gonna loose all hopes in humanity
djay00009 4 months ago
@djay00009 I think you're saying the people posting here are not qualified to comment. I disagree. Having a reasonably sophisticated knowledge of mathematics and physics, I can read scientific papers and check references. Others posting here are physics teachers, researchers or other amateurs (in the true meaning of the word) who are interested in exchanging ideas.
"I am definitely gonna loose all hopes in humanity" I think you mean "lose"?
EternalRecursion 4 months ago
I see truly where scientists round glob got confused! Can you say most important part in humans are the heart, the rest of the body part are useless. Obviously not because heart is functions with help of other body parts. This is what every scientists did in the past and they still doing the same thing today. Atoms do have neutrons electrons plus it has energy clouds beside protons and all they function in harmony hand to hand. Think about that?
Levon9404 4 months ago
@Levon9404 The point of Haramein's theory is to explain how the proton, a composite structure comprised of charge points that have no discernible size and exist for < nanosecond when released from the proton dynamic by particle collision, can have a measurable size and a stable half life experimentally determined to be a trillion trillion times greater than the known age of Universe, AND form the foundational constituent of discernible structure in an energy continuum we call existence.
EternalRecursion 4 months ago
@EternalRecursion In that case I agree with him!
Levon9404 4 months ago
@AlienScientist W8, but doesn't it give more credibility to Bob Lazar since he has said that Strong Force is actually a gravitational force? When was this discovered?
1MadVirus1 6 months ago
And the answer is to divide by ZERO.
djlivingfire 6 months ago
The mass of the Physical Universe inside the volume of a Proton? And that all Protons are like this? What renormalizes everything? I've heard strange things that are 'The standard model'... This is definitely over the top!
granddad2002 6 months ago
@granddad2002 First, think of mass as a force, the compliment of gravity. In a continuum of information we call Universe, form, structure and relationship are the result of particles of light interacting with waves of matter, communicating differentiation to conscious apprehension. All of existence is radiance curved into whorls of stable, self-referential points which define "this and that" by thresholds of diffraction and reflection. So, if mass is radiance (E/C^2), there is no limit ...
EternalRecursion 6 months ago
@granddad2002 ... of "size" to which mass can be reduced. There are, however, empirical facts that have emerged from the human study of material existence and one of those is Plank's Constant. A Plank Particle, "is a hypothetical particle defined as a tiny black hole whose Compton wavelength is comparable to its Schwarzschild radius." "the Planck particle would be extremely small (its radius being equal to the Planck length, which is about 10−20 times the proton's radius) ...
EternalRecursion 6 months ago
@granddad2002 ... and heavy (the Planck mass being 10^19 times the proton's mass)." Haramein theorizes an infinitesimal at the center of each proton, which provides the energy, via vacuum, to drive a double torus dynamic that results in a stable black hole. Drawing upon Hawking's theory explained in "A Brief History of Time," Haramein theorizes an event horizon at which the boundary of the proton dynamic differentiates from the contiguous field of information we call existence.
EternalRecursion 6 months ago
@granddad2002 Haramein and Elizabeth Rauscher have worked out the mathematics of such a stable black hole by incorporating spin into the equations, the double torus model giving the C^2 divisor necessary to the relativistic relationship. This theory of the proton is a derivation of a more inclusive theory that unites Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.
EternalRecursion 6 months ago
@granddad2002 By the way, the statement, "Its radius being ..." should read, "the Planck length, which is about 10^-20 times the proton's radius"
EternalRecursion 6 months ago
@granddad2002 "What renormalizes everything?" David Bohm called it "The implicate order." Max Planck said, "We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." I say, reality is a hologram and the entire dynamic of existence is contained within each proton, each proton being a harmonic resonator of the field matrix of this radiant continuum.
EternalRecursion 6 months ago
Great video, thank you. Where did you leave the infinite at.?
skiingfreestyle 7 months ago
...If we don't stop blowing up protons, the universe is going to show up and ask for their protons back!
AltairZielite 8 months ago
what is the point of this vide? can someone pls tell me in simple way. Thx
MrGlape 9 months ago
@MrGlape The video is an overview of a new theory of the structure of the proton. This theory is a derivation of a larger theory in which the mathematics of quantum dynamics are unified with the mathematics of Relativity by employing spin and the Coriolis Effect in the calculations. This theory provides a model of the proton which unites all the scales of energy dynamic in Universe, and solves a number of previously unsolved issues of physics.
EternalRecursion 8 months ago
The reason why the electron does not spiral into the nucleus is the repulsion from pauli exlcusion principle prevents two identical fermions from sharing the same space the same is true about the strong nuclear force between the protons.
geoffreyah 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So maybe the black Swartzchild proton, with mass + 8.85 E 11 kg closes space-time into a black singularity, whereas its polar opposite, a white Swartzchild proton, with mass just under - 8.85 E 11 kg ( note negative mass ) opens it again, forming a black ---> white form of wormhole or Einstein - Rosen bridge. The sum of the two hugely positive and hugely negative masses add to the tiny, standard, accepted proton mass ??? The traditional Physics and Chemistry still holds under this scenario ?
rijkent55 9 months ago
Note I have used SI units, below, with masses in kg, rather than c.g.s. units. I think we should stick with SI units. I also think the word "centrifugal force" in Nassim's paper, should be replaced by "centripetal force".
rijkent55 9 months ago
So maybe the black Swartzchild proton, with mass + 8.85 E 14 closes space-time into a black singularity, whereas its polar opposite, a white Swartzchild proton, with mass just under - 8.85 E 14 ( note negative mass ) opens it again, forming a black ---> white form of wormhole or Einstein - Rosen bridge. The sum of the two hugely positive and hugely negative masses add to the tiny, standard, accepted proton mass ??? The traditional Physics and Chemistry still holds under this scenario ?
rijkent55 9 months ago
@rijkent55 I agree. To clarify, the "polar opposite" should probably be called the vector opposite, the black hole proton being the inversion of the white hole field which is the wave structure of reality.
EternalRecursion 9 months ago
@EternalRecursion : So you're saying that the energy stored in the white hole field is such that its (NEGATIVE ) equivalence mass, M_whf = E_whf / c^2 , is such that M_whf + M_Swartzchild_proton = standard, accepted mass of proton ? This subject is not my forte, so hopefully my way of attempting to understand it in terms I am familiar with, might also agree with your understanding ??
rijkent55 9 months ago
@rijkent55 "So you're saying that the energy stored in the white hole field ..." No, I'm saying the energy propagating as something differentiable in a continuous and contiguous field of information is the horizon of the proton event, the "white hole". I am saying that most of the mass, "its (NEGATIVE ) equivalence mass, M_whf = E_whf / c^2" is manifesting as a) the information that COMPRISES the medium we call existence and b) the eternal stability of that informational structure.
EternalRecursion 9 months ago
@rijkent55 The proton is eternal, with an experimentally determined minimal half-life of 6.6 X 10^35 years, more than a trillion trillion times the observed age of Universe. Each proton is a harmonic resonator of the field matrix of existence, containing within its field the entirety of all the wave modulations that form the informational construct of the One, the Singular, Universe. The measured mass of the proton is a constant, like C and h; it is the inertial interactive constant of form.
EternalRecursion 9 months ago
@EternalRecursion your explanation of each proton being a harmonic resonator seems to agree with Keely's ideas.
sydfan526 7 months ago
If the mass of the black Schwartzchild proton, was somehow balanced by a white Schwartzchild proton to give the overall effective mass of the accepted proton mass, then the theory would not upset the apple cart for well established Science. Maybe these two Schwartzchild protons would form some kind of wormhole topology, with the black one connecting with the white one. My attempts at the Maths of reconciling this has been unsuccessful, & I have deleted those posts, because they don't make sense.
rijkent55 9 months ago
Comment removed
rijkent55 9 months ago
Comment removed
rijkent55 9 months ago
Comment removed
rijkent55 9 months ago
Having said that I love strange loop topologies, the idea of a "fractal type" of Universe / Multiverse, some of Wolfram's ideas, Garrett Lisi's etc etc. The Maths presented is an interesting play with numbers and Physics, much of it established classical Physics. I see no reason why a proton should necessarily lie on the same log/log graph as cosmically sized objects, although I can understand the appeal that it might be so, with the atom is a "miniature galaxy"; the Macrocosm/microcosm idea.
rijkent55 9 months ago
The quotient of the Schwartzchild proton mass / accepted proton mass is 8.85 E 14 g / 1.67 E (-24) g , which I shall call beta, being 5.3 E 38 . Now everything in standard Chemistry / Physics would have to be upscaled by beta, surely ? So one would increase molar mass by approximately beta for every element and compound, one would increase energy in Einsteins equation delta E = delta m c^2 by beta , even the mass of the entire Universe by about beta. This cannot be correct, surely ?
rijkent55 9 months ago
Comment removed
rijkent55 9 months ago
Note to uploader, you might want to mention his paper passed peer review and was published by the American Institute of Physics theresonanceproject(dot)org/blog/?p=179
GreatWaldoneous 9 months ago
Fascinating video, thanks for making it. I like the spiral representation of the Periodic Table, which I have seen before, amongst other items that I haven't. Just wondering : How would one use this model would to satisfactorily explain Rutherford's experiment with Gold foil and Alpha particles, which is taught at high school level (?). I'm just not sure how one would do even that ? On the Macro(cosmic) scale, colliding black holes coalesce to form even bigger ones.
rijkent55 10 months ago
@rijkent55 "On the Macro(cosmic) scale, colliding black holes coalesce to form even bigger ones." I have found only one reference from 2002 to VLA identified realigned radio-jet galaxy signatures, that the astronomers involved speculate as indications of black holes merging. Not much to go on.
EternalRecursion 9 months ago
@rijkent55 "How would one use this model would to satisfactorily explain Rutherford's experiment with Gold foil and Alpha particles?" In a Brief History of Time, Hawking introduces the idea of the event horizon of the black hole as an infinitesimal boundary differentiating inside from outside, the black hole radiating energy at levels beyond our ability to measure. In a like way, Haramein postulates a "white hole" radiant manifestation of the black hole proton, thus defining its boundary.
EternalRecursion 9 months ago
vary cool
FIGHTFANNERD3 10 months ago
Didn't know Zack Galifianakis was interested in Quantum Theory.
The0Keyboard0Kid 10 months ago
Protons are harmonic resonators of the holographic Universe: We may deconstruct pieces of reality for purposes of analysis, but REALITY is of a design, a matrix of energy dynamics that together comprise the SpaceTime continuum and the dynamic of evolution called Life, which includes the sensory response mechanisms and the sentient analysis of Itself. The Schwartzschild Proton model allows the mass of Universe to be contained within it as an informational map, the DNA of Universe.
EternalRecursion 10 months ago
The double torus dynamic of the Schwartzschild Proton model provides a mathematically coherent model of a stable black hole dynamic, fueled by the collapse of energy into the infinitesimal as the mirror inversion of the everything-expanding-away-from-everything-else inflation of Universe. As such, the Schwartzschild Proton is the perfect frictionless ball bearing, building material form on the most fundamental geometric principles of triangulation and tetrahedral agglomeration.
EternalRecursion 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I watched a bit of his video concerning the sungrazing comet in February 2003, and it's clear that he knows almost nothing about astronomy. If his physics is as bad as his astronomy, he's just another crackpo
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
you believe in E.T.?
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
this guy is a sectarian man, and you believe in him.
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Juandiegodiverso "this guy is a sectarian man, and you believe in him." What?
EternalRecursion 10 months ago
FAKE!!!
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
@Juandiegodiverso WHAT is "FAKE!!!"?
EternalRecursion 10 months ago
Nassim is Fake. He is not human. He is an alien jajajaja
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
@Juandiegodiverso "Nassim is Fake. He is not human. He is an alien jajajaja" Well, engaging in ad hominem abuse via bizarre and ludicrous accusations may seem to you as somehow meaningful, but I don't see how your non-sequitur applies to discussing this or related theories.
EternalRecursion 10 months ago
well. Nassim is a layer. his theories are false theories.
He want money
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
@Juandiegodiverso Please show me one academically or industrially employed physicist who doesn't "want money". Near as I can tell, they all expect big salaries, hope to win lucrative prizes, sell many books and get fat lecture fees, for their efforts.
EternalRecursion 10 months ago
ok, aliens exist and they are all between us.
ok ok.
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
@Juandiegodiverso "his theories are false theories." Please provide a mathematical refutation of the theory "Spinors, Twistors, Quaternions, and the “Spacetime” Torus Topology" by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.
EternalRecursion 10 months ago
ok. spinors are not an angular momentum because the particles rotate. This is an error.
No hay forma en la que pueda explicar la abominación de masa que le mete al protón para satisfacer su capricho de que sea un agujero negro. No conforme con eso, se queda ahí, sin decir nada respecto del resto de las partículas subatómicas, que de esta manera quedarían inalteradas, aún cuando la chanchada que hizo con el protón requiera reformular absolutamente todo
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
the mass of the protton is wrong.
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Juandiegodiverso "the mass of the protton is wrong." Too cryptic a statement; please elaborate or expand. Are you referring to the mass of the proton as measured inertial interaction of 1.6726 x 10^ -27 kg, or the mass of the proton as equal to mass of Universe?
EternalRecursion 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Juandiegodiverso "the mass of the protton is wrong." Too cryptic a statement; please elaborate or expand. Are you referring to the mass of the proton as measured inertial interaction of 1.6726 x 10^ -27 kg, or the mass of the proton as equal to mass of Universe?
EternalRecursion 10 months ago
A question. How is it that there is absolutely no support from any part of the scientific community for any of Nassim's ideas, talks, or research? None of his papers have been published in any scientific journal – certainly not one subject to proper peer review. Scientists seem to either treat him as a crank or dismiss him altogether
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
@Juandiegodiverso "None of his papers have been published in any scientific journal – certainly not one subject to proper peer review." The Schwartzschild Proton paper is now available through the American Institute of Physics.
EternalRecursion 10 months ago
A similar question. How is it that none of his radical historical ideas have any support from any academic institutions either?
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
@Juandiegodiverso ... Whenever I read stupid comments like the one you posted I go to the ytuber's channels and see what they have to uploaded or favored.
You have NOTHING slightly scientific either uploaded or as a favorite. Given your abundant interest in the subject (LOL) you find yourself qualified as the supreme expert critic of cutting edge physic, huh?
AFAskygoddess 10 months ago
"expert words" "I watched a bit of his video concerning the sungrazing comet in February 2003, and it's clear that he knows almost nothing about astronomy. If his physics is as bad as his astronomy, he's just another crackpo"
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
when you read the wording, it's clear that it was awarded for best paper presented in that category at a single computing systems conference; and that the 'peer reviewers' who awarded it were just the other people on the conference. Most people understand peer review to mean something quite different.
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
Nassim often talks about geometries or field equations or things of mathematical significance. Yet watching videos of him presenting ideas, it's painfully clear that he is clueless when it comes to pretty basic mathematics.
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
His theory gives the mass of the proton as 885 million tonnes when it's straightforward to measure that it's 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram.His theory predicts a force between the protons in a nucleus of 7.49 x 10^47 dynes, which is also many many orders of magnitude larger than what is measured.
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
@Juandiegodiverso "His theory gives the mass of the proton as 885 million tonnes when it's straightforward to measure that it's 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram." On the latter part, we have the deflection force of a proton in a magnetic field. However, the containment energy of the proton dynamic is vastly greater, as the experiments of super particle accelerators demonstrate. We know that the proton is a dynamic action, yet it appears to be eternal. Containment energy = mass.
EternalRecursion 10 months ago
Haramein says, "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." True words indeed! The numbers Haramein gives in his Schwarzschild Proton paper aren't remotely plausible. Furthermore they can be very easily 'tested', i.e. compared directly to the real world, without using any fancy physics at all, as I will illustrate.
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
He addresses the discrepancy here, about 90% of the way down. He points out that he has already explained it in his paper using the centrifugal force, and he berates me for not having read it. As it happens, I did read it (the paper is only a few pages long, after all). I didn't bother to discuss it because it doesn't change anything.
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
I raised many other fundamental issues with his theories, for example his claim that there is an event horizon around a proton (a region from which no light or particles can emerge, especially if this event horizon is somehow immune to rapid decay as protons clearly are). This is contradicted by the fact that we can clearly observe the proton's internal structure. Haramein hasn't responded to this at all.
Juandiegodiverso 10 months ago
@Juandiegodiverso "This is contradicted by the fact that we can clearly observe the proton's internal structure." Although you have raised a few points worth addressing, this statement is so EXTREMELY wrong, that it is mind numbing. The internal structure and dynamics of the proton remain purely speculative, with competing theoretical models proposed to explain the observed phenomena when the proton is subjected to various experiments.
EternalRecursion 10 months ago
This guy dosent even have a degree...
julz1278 11 months ago
@julz1278 And?
EternalRecursion 11 months ago
@EternalRecursion The man is a joke.
Google his name, and click on "Up: Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?"
julz1278 11 months ago
@julz1278 I am well aware of the critics and critiques of Haramein and his video presentations. Almost all the criticisms are of his statements or "misstatements" of physics, or at least how physics is currently presented in academia. When I watch these videos, what I see repeatedly is Haramein explaining how he came to be a rogue in this effort to understand the basic structures and systems of existence, and he is often quite unrestrained in his disdain for the conventions of intellectual ..
EternalRecursion 11 months ago
@julz1278 ... safety embraced by the majority of academics in their group think. That he makes an occasional statement that is free in its usage, such as, "The first law of physics" or is not within the accepted paradigm of those who make substantial incomes by feeding the research grant/tuition generation/technological profit machine, like, "Reality is sub-divisions of space" is of little concern to me. No one has offered a meaningful challenge to the theoretical papers on his website.
EternalRecursion 11 months ago
@julz1278 That his theories may stand the physics world on its head is not a valid challenge. I repeat, NO ONE has offered an analytical, mathematical challenge to these theories. I refer specifically to the papers co-authored with Elizabeth Rauscher (who has all the academic credentials you could ask for). As for the specific sub-theory of the proton as a stable black hole, I am prepared to argue in defense of that theory. The proton is an ACTION, not a billiard ball. Haramein has offered ...
EternalRecursion 11 months ago
@julz1278 ... the only complete theory of a stable wave-particle identity comprised of nanosecond duration, invisible sub-components that leave high energy wakes in recording fields when said stable wave particle is annihilated through super high energy collisions. Other than these annihilations, the proton appears to all analysis to be eternal, with a theoretical half-life of 6.3 x 10^35 years, or a trillion, trillion, trillion times longer than the known age of Universe.
EternalRecursion 11 months ago
@julz1278 And yet, the proton is a composite structure which, based upon the hypothetical size of the constituant quarks, gluons, etcetera, is, like everything else, 99.9999% space. I know you guys like to think you have everything figured out and it's just a matter of time before you have all the answers, but maybe Haramein is the one who sees farther and with greater clarity. Check out R. Buckminster Fuller's theories or C. Donald Briddell's Field Structure Theory.
EternalRecursion 11 months ago
Comment removed
GMANIM 11 months ago
Comment removed
GMANIM 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wann: 10.06.11
Wo: Congresshalle Saarbrücken - von 10 Uhr - 20 Uhr
Themen: Einheitsfeldtheorie, die heilige Geometrie, Atlantis und Lemuria, verschollene Hochkulturen, verbotene Archäologie, Funde die es nicht geben dürfte
Redner: Nassim Haramein, Dr. Heinrich Kruparz, Klaus Dona, Kurt Schneider
Kartenvorbestellung unter: info@hesper-verlag.de oder 0681 - 83 19 043
moringa09 1 year ago
Wow, I'm gonna stay tuned, this stuff is amazing.
cipher2 1 year ago
Lazar said that the strong nuclear force really quantum gravity years ago. His story seems more credible now. Wouldn't you say?
Esoparagon 1 year ago
Personally, I am much more interested in this proton theory and the implications that just freak out the material objectivists. I am one who asserts that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics together reveal an aspect of reality that transcends the material, what David Bohm called the "implicate order". R.B.Fuller pointed out that mathematics and physical PRINCIPLES are meta-physical, discernible to mind but not physical - you can't find math under a rock or see it through a telescope.
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
Yet, there are critics of Haramein who attack him specifically because of these meta-physical implications in his theory. I find it rather off-putting that, despite the observations that human activity is infinitesimally small when compared to only the neighboring cosmos, and that there appears to be essentially unlimited opportunity to learn and discover, the thought of there being a Transcendent aspect to existence is cited as automatically invalidating anything.
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
I suggest giving a look at Stephen Wolfram's book, a New Kind of Science. It deals with natural systems progressing into high complexity according to simple rule sets. Very much related to what is being discussed here! I'm more dubious about the implications that you seem to make at the end of the video, but I'm willing to hear things out as the evidence supports.
speedysavant 1 year ago
@speedysavant, I just got it for Christmas! It's incredible! I love it.
AlienScientist 1 year ago
@AlienScientist Merry Christmas! I think that his claims at the end of the book are rather unsupported, as I've heard people from those fields completely shoot him down on it. But with some more work, it could really become an interesting addition to math and chaos theory!
speedysavant 1 year ago
@speedysavant, Yeah I haven't gotten that far yet but what I have seen so far is interesting and I like how he is so straight forward in describing his though process of how he discovered all the patterns and rules.
I really liked how he showed those cone snail shells which had almost identical patterns to the ones he generated with simple linear arrays. I think it could help explain genetic coding since DNA is kind of like a linear array. It certainly appears to describe natural patterns.
AlienScientist 1 year ago
@AlienScientist DNA isn't a linear array - that's one of the most common misinterpretations of it. It's a *lot* more complicated, as I am led to believe. For example, a gene can be active or inactive depending on how the DNA is "kinked" as it coils around the nucleosomes, or can express differently depending on what's near it. It's not as straightforward as a code, though it can still be simulated, obviously. That's one part of the science that Wolfram really needs to look into. Still good tho:)
speedysavant 1 year ago
@speedysavant I haven't read Wolfram's book (yet) and, although I understand from the context that you are making reference to pattern propagation and its applicability to this theory of the proton, my understanding of the new field of epigenetics is that the amino acid sheath that surrounds the DNA is a dynamic structure that learns and modifies with life experience, passing on behavioral traits aquired from the parent's experience. It is reported to be FAR more complex than DNA.
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
@EternalRecursion To my understanding of epigenetics, the various nuclear structures outside of DNA itself affect which DNA sequences are active or inactive, being part of the process that allows cell differentiation. Prions and other interesting oddities can arise too; it's neat stuff! But I've never hard of it acquiring experience. Do you have any references?
speedysavant 1 year ago
@speedysavant Well, this isn't an area of knowledge to which I have devoted much attention, but I have thought for years that DNA must be adaptive, that that was the only explanation for a lot of things. I then read an article (waiting in a dentist's office) in some pop science magazine (don't remember which) that epigenetics arose from population studies indicating an adaptive, learning aspect of genetics. That"s really all I've got. Of course, Net searches would show a great deal.
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
@AlienScientist Ive been saying this all along, a subatomic singularity gives the mass and gives the quantum entanglement effect to all matter in BEC state or field. Where EMF shows observable time.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 9 months ago
@AlienScientist The vacuum seems to be in a BEC state, even though the same state in a gravitational field exists also.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 9 months ago
This paper is now part of the American Institute of Physics (see the AIP site proceedings 1303). Which means that it is now searchable by university students. This is great news since the new ideas in it will permeate into the establishment. Whoever you are, you should think twice before dismissing this paper.
guillermotempo 1 year ago
The thing that i don't get is why is the presence of the golden ratio evidence for a replication. Sure you can find self replicating systems with this ratio but you can also find other systems with different ratios. I think that this is some sort of non-sequitur.
tekhiun 1 year ago
kFrederking: Whereas you state, "I haven't read the paper you mention, and Given what I have already seen (several hours of presentations), I don't think I will." I have watched very little of Haramein's lectures, choosing instead to read his papers co-authored with Elizabeth Rauscher. It strikes me as the quintessential irony that you attack his style of presentation and possible linguistic errors, and on that basis judge his papers without reading them.
EternalRecursion 1 year ago 7
@EternalRecursion,
This sort of attitude of conceded ignorance and violent resistance to new ideas is a common theme among the "scientific" community. They don't understand the tricks of concealment that lie within disclosure. For everything that is shown, something else is hidden. And for all this is shown to us through mathematics and science, we still in the end rely on human opinions for our notion of acceptance, credibility, and truth...
AlienScientist 1 year ago
@AlienScientist His peer reviewers are in actuallity not scientists... this should make you think twice, as you seem to profile yourself as the cartesian thinker :> I love a lot of your work on youtube, so i hope you can accept this criticism.
Actually read & cross check his 'research', don't only listen to his lectures. He's amazing at giving lectures and making things sound plausible ^^ Yet, his results... well, a bit less impressive :p
devilzown11 1 year ago
@AlienScientist The visible universe is a dimension of time and space, within a Bose Einstein Condensate state. The vacuum of space represents and should be equal to the energy in the universe as it is a side effect or bi-product of energy itself. The singularity should have no vacuum as it is matter at rest and its event horizon allows frequency to maintain its observable time or the illusion of solidity or mass, around it. The singularity is the Higgs field or God particle.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 9 months ago
No, sorry, I haven't read the paper you mention, and Given what I have already seen (several hours of presentations), I don't think I will.
If you can't follow Haramein's maths, then there are only two things you can do: Believe them (which is the 'religious' approach), or ask someone who can. If you don't believe me, find someone you know who has studied physics (and I don't mean wikipedia lookups), and ask her or him, if vacuum has Planck density, or whatever statement you want checked.
kFrederking 1 year ago
@kFrederking,
I haven't watched any of Nassim's lectures, instead I chose to attend an event where he spoke about the Schwarzschild Proton and I got to meet and talk with him personally about it. I then read his paper on the Schwarzschild Proton and rather hastily slapped together a video on it.
Kinda funny how you are commenting on a paper you've never read... I'd rather talk to someone who has actually read the paper, than listen to someone's un-informed opinion.
AlienScientist 1 year ago
@AlienScientist
"Uninformed opinion" coming from a gullible layman, following a delusional dilettante, addressing a physicist with experience in particle physics, is rather funny.
Good luck with further messages via crop circles. Since you haven't addressed one single point of factual criticism I posted here, I assume you can't. Which makes this exchange pointless - so I'm out, and leave it to our readers here to judge whether the physics community is right, or one self proclaimed guru + fans.
kFrederking 1 year ago
@kFrederking,
What factual criticism have you posted other than the Planck -Phi thing? Which BTW I added annotations correcting that mistake a week after I posted the video...
You've openly stated that you haven't read the paper... I understand most of the content is discussed in this video, but still where are your criticisms? Your attitude reflects that of the physics community, which is one of conceded and willful ignorance that is resistant to paradigm shifts.
AlienScientist 1 year ago
"change of figments" -> "chain of figments"
kFrederking 1 year ago
@kFrederking I recognize that Haramein repeatedly makes comments like, "I then realized ..." and references information from previous research or theories without citing the source. I have no idea if it is his intention to lay claim to the work of others or if he just considers that it would be too disruptive to his presentation to continuously break the flow. I have on occasion made initial comments to the affect that I will be presenting ideas I learned from others but embrace to the ...
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
... degree that I consider them my own truths and will not continuously cite the sources, that said sources can be made available upon request. Is that what Haramein is doing? I don't know.
As for: "Haramein's knowledge of physics is on average high school level, at best" Have you looked at the paper by Haramein and Rauscher, "Spinors, Twistors, Quarternions, And The "Spacetime" Torus Topology"? SOMEBODY has a pretty advanced knowledge of the theories and mathematics of the topic.
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
Additionally: "chain of figments" It is a recognized approach to any theoretical construct to use established ideas or givens to build a coherent model. I do not see the extraction of the mass of the universe as a trick, I see it as the obvious result of the given he first sets. You may assert that Haramein is rigging the game by choosing his given; I would rejoin that it seems obvious that he looked for correspondences that would fit and support his conception.
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
You will find formula (2b) at 44seconds into the clip, with the sole difference, that the index to the density "PC" has been replaced by "ν" (ny).
This is the first formula used in the "theory". For practically every other "surprising" step in his change of figments, I could do a similar deconstruction. I certainly won't. If the answers the crop circles give are better than those of established physics, then it's the audience's problem, not mine.
kFrederking 1 year ago
P.S.: everything from "2. THE NONSINGULAR", to the last formula (3) is a quote from israelit and Rosen's paper.
Sorry, I forgot the quotation marks.
kFrederking 1 year ago
From
"Weylian Dark Matter and Cosmology",
Mark Israelit and Nathan Rosen,
in Foundations of Physics, Vol. 24, No. 6, 1994
I guess you'll recognize the formula.
Let me make this completely clear: Haramein's knowledge of physics is on average high school level, at best - and that only if one doesn't hold his errors and mistakes against him. Actually, he's doing quite a lot of damage to respectable science, and I hope his audience stays small.
kFrederking 1 year ago
with ρ the density and P the pressure. The initial density was equal to the
Planck density
ρp = c³/ ħG = 3.83 x 10^65 1/cm² (2a)
in general-relativity units, or
ρpc = c^5/ ħG² = 5.16 x 10^93 g/cm³ (2b)
in conventional units, and the initial value of the radius R was
R= (3/8πρp)^(1/2) = 5.58 x 10^-34 cm (3)
kFrederking 1 year ago
2. THE NONSINGULAR COSMOLOGICAL MODEL
The model that was proposed was based on the idea that, at the
moment the present expansion began, the homogeneous and isotropic
universe, in the form of a three-dimensional spherical surface, was filled
with prematter characterized by the equation of state
P= -ρ (1)
kFrederking 1 year ago
Haramein has plucked the figure he bases his whole theory on from a completely different context. He invents a new term, and borrows a figure from a different theory - which he doesn't cite or credit - a figure conveniently already containing the mass of the universe, and then extracts, that figure with some simple number tricks.
I could ask you to believe me, instead of the charlatan, but I can do better. I cite my source:
...
kFrederking 1 year ago
Actually, the conference wasn't about quantum computing, but about anticipatory systems, which is a branch of artificial intelligence. A branch that has strong ties to business and economics, some to biology. No peers for physical theories to be found there. Anyway, how authentic that praise is isn't my main concern. The "peer review" is, of course, an invention. No physicist has ever graced that paper with an "aye".
As for the "vacuum density": I may not have made it sufficiently clear.
kFrederking 1 year ago
P.S.: What I forgot to mention is, that it doesn't take much to arrive at "this is also the mass of the entire universe", if you insert that mass into the calculation by including it in a fancy constant, before doing some sleight-of-hand multiplications to re-extract it.
kFrederking 1 year ago
... About now, it should be obvious, that someone making such basic errors (assuming it's not fraud, like the "peer review" likely is) wouldn't pass a beginners exam in college level physics.
kFrederking 1 year ago
... The estimates for the density of (hypothetical) vacuum energy currently differ by more than 120 orders of magnitude [!!!], so giving it with an accuracy of three decimals is already a fake-giveaway.
Where this number comes from is a completely different model, that of a primordial universe compressed in a very small, but non-singular volume.
It is the exact opposite of a "quantum vacuum": All the mass/energy of our universe, contained in a sphere of about 5x10^-34 cm radius.
...
kFrederking 1 year ago
@kFrederking "The estimates for the density of (hypothetical) vacuum energy currently differ by more than 120 orders of magnitude [!!!], so giving it with an accuracy of three decimals is already a fake-giveaway."
So, you are saying that Haramein choosing a value that comes from "a completely different model, that of a primordial universe compressed in a very small, but non-singular volume" which falls within the hypothetical range for "the density of vacuum energy," used by Haramein ...
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
... as a given, "The quantum vacuum density is given as rho sub v = 5.16 x 10^93 gm/cm^3" constitutes "a fake-giveaway" "assuming it's not fraud"? Using a given, that falls within the estimates, in order to create a coherent model constitutes fakery or fraud?
The "peer review" was at a conference on quantum computing held at the University of Liege, so, yes, it was NOT a prize from the University, but from the Conference.
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
[continued]
Nassim is so fascinated by the beauty of those conclusions that fit, that he doesn't even start to question those that are pure conjecture.
He certainly has the intelligence to build a model of reality (though not necessarily a unified field theory), but he lacks the self-criticism to do so in a constructive process by learning from errors.
Btw: I couldn't find mentioning a peer review anywhere but on his own sites. And the certificate is not from the University of Liege.
kFrederking 1 year ago
@AlienScientist
I in no way say that all he says is wrong. Nassim has a fairly good grasp of basic physical and mathematical principles, but he lacks a healthy amount of scepticism with regard to his own conclusions. Which means that he starts making assumptions from some half-understood concepts (he clearly misunderstood vacuum energy), introducing additional logical errors, until finally, the whole is a building, or rather cloud castle, with no connection to a foundation.
[cont]
kFrederking 1 year ago
Since I can't post a direct link here, Google this:
(PART 1) Nassim Haramein at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library. 2003
and watch the video from 1h55m on.
I could point out the numerous fallacies in his "theory", but I guess that show will show even the layman in Physics what to think of "octagonal vacuum structure".
kFrederking 1 year ago
@kFrederking,
hmm interesting... This video was on the paper that Nassim Published on the Schwarzschild Proton. I thought it was an interesting idea (and still do to some extent) I can't comment on every claim Nassim has ever made, I have found numerous flaws myself. Doesn't mean that everything he has ever said is wrong. He does lack formal education and training that would help with some of the bad connections he makes, like the Plank Length somehow being related to Phi.
AlienScientist 1 year ago
@kFrederking "he starts making assumptions from some half-understood concepts (he clearly misunderstood vacuum energy)," "I could point out the numerous fallacies in his "theory", but I guess that show will show even the layman in Physics what to think of "octagonal vacuum structure"."
I took your recommendation to watch the video, beginning at 1h55m and I think you misunderstood the context of the words "octagonal vacuum structure." First, I suspect that Nassim meant to say octahedral ...
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
... rather than octagon, as he was presenting the tetrahedral frequency extensions of fundamental structural dynamics, saying that the outside must have an inside, the outside being radiative projection Isotropic Vector Equilibrium in the form of the dodecahedron and the inside being a retreating projection as the complimentary octahedron.
Haramein has clearly developed his ideas from predecessors including Buckminster Fuller, who developed his own ideas from experiments with ...
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
... "closest packing of spheres". Fuller recognized that atoms manifest as spherical structures which align in tetrahedral coordination. But more than that, Fuller developed his own ideas of geodesics to identify the tetrahedron as the fundamental first form and in geodetic geometry, the sphere contains all the great circles of the platonic solids. Essentially, as without, so within.
I agree with your suggestion that Haramein is so enthusiastic about presenting the beauty of all the ...
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
... interconnections he sees that he oversimplifies many of the numerous pieces of information he is presenting, but I suspect he is more concerned with expanding the numbers of people who can see these interconnections than he is with presenting the arcana of his mathematics. After all, the papers are on line for any and all who wish to read them to do so.
I do not know, have not met and have no vested or financial interest in Nassim Haramein, but I think you are incorrect in saying ...
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
... "he clearly misunderstood vacuum energy". Having spent a great deal of time over the past year discussing, thinking about and researching information pertinent to Haramein's theories, I am convinced that he is on to something significant; if he doesn't have THE Unified Field Theory, I think he has much of it. His Schwartzschild Proton model is a special theory of his general theory and is, therefore, neither a complete theory nor meant to be.
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
@EternalRecursion
My comment wasn't so much about octagonal or octahedral, but about crop circles verifying his theory.
I'm actually a physicist, no longer by trade, but by college education. I have studied at DESY, which admittedly isn't as impressive as the LHC is today, but even without having a unified field theory ready, I think my grasp of fundamental particle physics, QFT, and GR are quite good. And they are in no way in line with many of the statements made by Haramein.
kFrederking 1 year ago
@kFrederking Fair enough. And?
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
@EternalRecursion
And what? The number of errors is far to great to roll them out in a thread like this, but I will give you an example, starting right at the beginning of the clip above:
What Haramein calls the "Quantum vacuum density" and numbers at 5.16x10^93 g/cm³ is his own invention. The term may sound similar to zero point energy, or vacuum energy, mixed with "probability density" for quantum fluctuations, but it is completely bogus. ...
kFrederking 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People, it's a hoax. This is complete BS, and Nassim Haramein is an enthusiastic dilettante, who can't tell real physics from crop circles.
kFrederking 1 year ago
Comment removed
kFrederking 1 year ago
Comment removed
kFrederking 1 year ago
Comment removed
kFrederking 1 year ago
Comment removed
kFrederking 1 year ago
my head hurts.
ewri2218 1 year ago
What has the Planck length got to do with the golden Ratio? They are completely different numbers. The similarity between their first 3 decimals only applies in the base 10 number system.
Kotfluegel 1 year ago 2
@Kotfluegel,
Yes absolutely nothing. It intrigued me when I first heard it, and made this video. But after thinking about it I realized that one is dimensionless and the other a length and they have nothing to do with one another. I have also pointed this out to Nassim Haramein so he regrets making that association. I noticed he does that a lot. Tries to connect things in some profound way to awe his audience. I appreciate his work nonetheless, especially this theory.
AlienScientist 1 year ago
@AlienScientist time nd space is gods trick.....all theories to date are mistakes and dont mean a thing.....we have to think outside the parameters of space and time...it does not matter how small a thing is cos it can be divided into half for ever and ever...
abonawas 1 year ago
@Kotfluegel,
Yes, I mentioned this to Nassim and showed him the errors in his "analysis" of the Planck Length having a relation to a unit-less ratio. This was only an added note that caught my attention during Nassim's Lecture more out of peculiarity and curiosity than anything else, mention of it has been edited out of the final submission to the AIP.
This mistake has been corrected.
AlienScientist 1 year ago
@AlienScientist I've been too busy to get my energy up for replying to kFrederking, whose last post, referring to you as a "gullible layman," makes it clear that people like kFrederking prefer willful ignorance rather than addressing anything that challenges their ego-maniacal self absorption. Oh well. I've been reading the LEX book on Quantum Mechanics, getting up to speed on wave mechanics, but I am ready to have a bulletin board dialogue with anyone who wants to explore how this theory ...
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
... is CORRECT. As Michael Faraday would have us do, as Einstein did in his book on relativity, Hawking with "A Brief History of Time" and R.B.Fuller with the two volume "Synergetics", we CAN discuss this without the mathematics. I welcome anyone who wants to have a DIALOGUE and not make pronouncements like, "I'm a particle physicist and therefore you should surrender your judgment to my authority." Remember, Einstein could not understand deBroglie's wave mechanics!
EternalRecursion 1 year ago
this is amazing...
OneHappyBlonde 1 year ago
Thanks , everything is crystal clear now.
richeart333 1 year ago
Excellent video!!!
curiositydefined 1 year ago
I got a good Idea of what was being explained and it makes more sense to me then most other theories. I'm no mathmatician but the concept is facinating and it does answer one of my first questions of when I was a child. Why do atoms look like solor systems. The question at the end of this video is asking How and why Does what the proton replicate itself??? Until people realize that size has no relevance that may be answered i