Added: 2 years ago
From: AlienScientist
Views: 27,502
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (235)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • great vid, this is the first time i've heard a conceptualization of scalar waves. Thx

  • This is a very "wet" video. =p

  • @RealityGrapple oneness...

  • This video went viral on Tbilisi

    

  • the Mayans way to say "hello" meant "hello another me" they knew about the oneness

  • false time and space are not the same. Hence the metric has a signature of 2 rather than a euclidean signature. the flat minkowksi metric goes -1,1,1,1 time always has a negative in front and must be converted using c to get it in meters. Einstein created a the 4-vector which includes times as a dimension. Get your shit straight jackass.

  • Me personally...I dont think there are Singularities. I think the potential exists that the secondary horizon, where matter rushing in meets the matter spinning around the "singularity"...could be where it stops. Look at a Hurricane, the eye of the storm is this empty space around which everything rotates, is it conceivable that everything is rotating around so fast that it literally pulls open Space/Time and creates a bubble of what amounts to "less than nothing"?

  • Anti-Gravity / Cold Fusion Explained In Detail: A New Era In Physics Pt. 10 of ?

  • Not a Hoax... I have been working on my own "inter-dimensional

    relation theory" for 20 years, and i can tell you now... this is brilliant

    work.! If i might add the postulate that time's arrow

    is falling into these mini-singularities, and the expansion of space

    is thus an illusion.

    here, roll this around your cranium....

    " Space minus Time Equals Energy.

    AND Energy minus time equals Space.

  • on the other hand, black holes don't have infinite mass as originally thought. I always wondered what happens to protons and neutrons in black holes. Are the protons still there?

  • Excuse me, I made a mistake. I should have said we CANNOT accelarate matter particles to the speed of light something which is proved in the large hadron collider which accelerates protons to close to the speed of light. According to relativity, it would take an infinite amount of energy to force protons to reach the speed of light but if we could it might be fun. We could call it the schwartzchild implosion of all matter in the universe.

  • We can accelerate matter particles to the speed of light because they would have to become infinitely massive according to relativity which is why the entire universe would collapse into a black hole if protons were black holes spinning at the speed of light.

  • If protons were small black holes all the entire matter in our universe would IMPLODE!!!!!! All the matter in the universe would collapse into a super massive black hole; The entire universe would become a quantum sigularity. Stephen J. Hawking said before the big bang, the universe was a single quantum singularity. I don't know if there still are protons in black holes. There are there but I don't think anything alive is in there.

  • Black holes have mass and so do all matter particles called Fermions: Protons and Neutrons in the nucleus. All matter particles CANNOT EVER REACH THE SPEED OF LIGHT! Anything with mass also cannot reach the speed of light so two black holes the size of Protons or nucleons cannot travel at the speed of light.

  • someone is going to get hired to be my physics tutor!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

  • Follow the mass. All you have to do is follow the mass. Perhaps before 1964 we would have a better chance of throwing a printer's tray in the air and it coming down spelling out the Lord's Prayer than understanding this piece of information. Go Boy!

  • everyone one is the part of the same thing then we all already know the physics its just a matter of our willingness to except it we are all giving the signs we are all receptive and transmissive we are a big part of nassim figuring this out i believe all falsify all of things being thought are our will to knowing the truths if everyone dont except this then we will not prevail me all have to find this in goodness

  • @AlienScientist But science is founded on scepticism, and couldn't progress without it. As Peter Abelard said, "I proceed from doubt, because without doubt I will never question, and without questioning I will never perceive the truth." Brave words in a faith-based 12th Century. Scepticism insists on good evidence for belief, and this becomes knowledge. When did healthy scepticism become 'pseudoskepticism', and what does that term mean?

  • People thinking "in the box" may evolve technology but can never evolve science. Great mind Nassim Haramein!

  • @AlienScientist regaring what you write in the description, don't be mad if people attacks you, it is simply a way to demostrate that fear is there taking care of the conservative way to see the world.

    People like Einstein, J.Krishnamurti, Haramein, Ghandi, Christ, but even Napoleon, Fidel Castro & Che Guevara, Plato, you, me and perhaps billions of others in this planet are the responsible for mind evolution. And simply as this is, it can not be stopped!

    So keep posting

    Thanks a lot for it

  • Great post!

    Just a note to those who think that mainstream science is somehow an authority that independent thinkers have a problem with. Clearly these opinions reflect a very limited understanding of the actual reality in which mainstream science operates and ignores the fact that unresolved problems of foundation are at the heart of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity! May I suggest some important literature; The problem with physics (Lee Smolin) for a start, The end of time (Julian Barbour) etc.

  • Great post!

    Just a note to those who think that mainstream science is somehow an authority that independent thinkers have a problem with. Clearly these opinions reflect a very limited understanding of the actual reality in which mainstream science operates and ignores the fact that unresolved problems of foundation are at the heart of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity! May I suggest some important literature; The problem with physics (Lee Smolin) for a start, The end of time (Julian Barbour) etc.

  • The Schwarzschild Proton (Part 7)

    These documents answer in detail many concerns about the model and the approach taken.

    Please read them to further understand this paper.

    A short description of the paper and its results may be found at:

    Dr. Hyson's Schwarzschild Proton Comments at: youtube . com / watch?v=7XG4T3cUXL8

    and

    Dr. Hyson's Blog about the Schwarzschild Proton at: planetpuna . com / hysonscorner / index . htm

    More may be found at: theresonanceproject . org

  • @DrMichaelHyson, Make sure to post some of these excellent videos as a response to my videos so people can find them easier. Just click in the comment box on this video and hit "post video response" then select "Choose a video" and select your best video (or number 1 in the series)

    Thanks Dr. Hyson. I look forward to working with you and your team to further expose the correctness of this model.

  • The Schwarzschild Proton (Part 6)

    …wide-ranging comments which are often misguided or fail to understand the approach and therefore often dismiss the ideas involved. We encourage you to read further and understand the issues. Answers to an extensive critique of the paper may be found at:

    "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto" at: theresonanceproject . org / sp_manifesto . html

    (a 50 page discussion) and the "Letter to Bobathon" at: theresonanceproject . org / bob . html

  • The Schwarzschild Proton (Part 5)

    … predicted or forecasted from a model of a system.

    (For more information read: Daniel M. Dubois, Introduction to Computing Anticipatory Systems, International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, Publ. by CHAOS, vol. 2, pp. 3-14, 1998. ISSN 1373-5411 ISBN 2-9600179-2-7.)

    This applies significantly to physics, and the conference is well attended by international physicists, physics teams and physics Nobel laureates alike.

    The paper has generated …

  • The Schwarzschild Proton (Part 4)

    ...of the conference. From the CASYS website:

    "After Daniel M. Dubois, a computing anticipatory system is a system that computes its current states in taking into account its past and present states but also its potential future states. Daniel Dubois introduced the following concepts of Strong and Weak Anticipation:

    Strong anticipation refers to an anticipation of events built by or embedded in a system. Weak anticipation refers to an anticipation of events.

  • The Schwarzschild Proton (Part 3)

    See: theresonanceproject . org / best_paper_award . html . See this list to examine the papers Haramein was competing against in this section: theresonanceproject . org / casys09 . html .

    And by the way, the CASYS conferences are not about computers, as alleged in several of the comments, but are about computing anticipatory systems, in other words, strategies to compute anticipatory systems as defined by the director and founder…

  • The Schwarzschild Proton (Part 2)

    The paper shows that properties such as the proton's magnetic moment fit such a model. Most importantly, while the paper is brief, it attempts to give a source for mass and the strong force, issues often ignored by current theories.

    (Please remove spaces added in the links below)

    Note that the CASYS conference "best paper" awarded of its “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation” section is signed by several peers

  • The Schwarzschild Proton (Part 2)

    The paper shows that properties such as the proton's magnetic moment fit such a model. Most importantly, while the paper is brief, it attempts to give a source for mass and the strong force, issues often ignored by current theories.

    (Please remove spaces added in the links below)

  • The Schwarzschild Proton (Part 1)

    A recent paper by Nassim Haramein titled "The Schwarzschild Proton" presents a model for the proton as a mini black hole and derives the proton structure from the vacuum energy and suggests, among other things, that protons are attracted to each other by gravitation rather than a “strong force.” This view of the quantum world produces a unification of the forces and appropriately predicts (for first order approximation) measured values for the nucleon of atoms

  • The Schwarzschild Proton (Part 1)

    A recent paper by Nassim Haramein titled "The Schwarzschild Proton" presents a model for the proton as a mini black hole and derives the proton structure from the vacuum energy and suggests, among other things, that protons are attracted to each other by gravitation rather than a “strong force.” This view of the quantum world produces a unification of the forces and appropriately predicts (for first order approximation) measured values for the nucleon of atoms.

  • Here's the truth:

    The universe is made of pure information/consciousness/love­.

    The universe has no opposite.

    We're all equal, connected and one.

  • @theTOOLshed1 And now, another nonsensical platitude from TOOLshed!

  • @sincristo

    And now, a completely unhelpful and insensitive comment from sincristo.

    Obviously, you have nothing of your own to show. In fact, you're just a broken record of the same model of physics that has now been proven wrong. If you can't see this, then you are BLIND and no better than a religious zealot. THAT is the rhetoric I'm referring to.

    Refute me properly or don't refute me at all.

  • @theTOOLshed1 Refute what? Your starry-eyed statement that the universe is made of pure consciousness?

    Okay, I'll give that a try.

    Ready? Here goes:

    No it's not!

    There... consider yourself refuted. If you want a more detailed refutation, please feel free to make a statement that is... I dunno... coherent?

  • If Nassim is right about 50% of his redirects, then that is huge. From my perspective, I know he is right about no less than 50% of his advancements.

    To make a single solid advancement in science is a very admirable. To make numerous advancements is phenomenal.

  • Are you familiar with the detailed criticism of Nassim's physics posted on a blog called "Up" (google: "azureworld blogspot")? Nassim personally responded to that, but followed by a further refutation from the blogger.

  • the answer to life, the universe and everything in it is... 42. hahaha, gotta love douglas adams. We must first understand the question before we understand the answer ;)

  • Your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.

    The mind of a man is self absorbed when he does not make this distinction about himself.

  • I barely have the math backround to understand the trig. but the animation from 4:47 TO 6:05 is an excellent example of (my concept of)a photon traveling through space(and/or the vacuume and the Higgs). Am I wrong?

  • Indie3, it's not just fringe followers:

    "God punished my contempt for authority by making me one." - Einstein

    "Science progresses not by scientists accepting new ideas, but because old scientists die..." - Max Planck

    but I'm not saying he's legit...

  • Alienscientist, I'm assuming you have some sort of science or math degree/s (or are currently getting one /masters/phd etc). I was wondering what your major is?

  • It's funny how much of this I can understand now.

  • I love your videos

  • 137 is a prime number. the 33rd prime number. 33 comes up a lot in esoteric mathmatics.

  • AlienScientist, keep it up! I love the work you're doing!

  • I only wish some publicly well established and respected scientists (if that geneva pannel wasn't good enough) found the courage to review Nassims' work. But this might never happen, as the fact alone of his work being reviewed (consideration of serious worth), could mean a "fatal" blow to many mainstream scientists, theories... It's like aknowledging there might be something to it afterall. I doubt it'll come to that.

  • Nassims' theories are getting way too much opposition to be all hoax, charlatanism or whatever many call it. I have yet too see serious, constructive, scientific criticism instead of bad mouthing. Problem is - it's hard to debunk something the scientific way, that seems to be scientifically correct. I mean , when so much is at stake in the scientific community, I wouldn't expect anything less, but a really hard opposition. Remains to be seen which parties can remain civilized.

  • Where did I say I was an authority? I said fringe followers have a psychological problem with all forms of authority.

    We are not still in the bronze age, thanks to the progress of real Science. I follow, with great interest all the latest developments in all their brilliance. I only oppose charlatans.

  • Indie 3 said, (on TheBobathon's Channel)

    "I too was blocked on alien scientists channel for a while, but I seem to be able to post there again ... maybe I haven't annoyed him as much as you have ... I must try harder! lol "

    If your reason for posting comments on my videos is to annoy me, and not to debate the truth, what does that say about you?

  • What it says about me, is that I have a sense of humour. What this says about you, is that you can't recognise a humorous remark when you see it (the lol was a clue).

  • Sigh. The "closed minded" mantra.

    Science has progressed incredibly fast, with NEW theories, ideas, discoveries, applications, technologies. It has done this by being constantly OPEN to new ideas, not "closed minded".

    The psychology of fringe-followers is a spiteful hatred of "authority". They hate "mainstream", Wiki, and anything they see as "authority".

    Which is why alienscientist deleted Eleanor's post leading to the hidden Wiki pages debunking Haramein.

    You can delete this now.

  • Comment removed

  • Truth is the correspondence of observational matter to knowledge and of knowledge to observable matter.

    Nonetheless, the one is not the mere inversion of the other.

    Truth is in accord between a subjective observation and pre-set of propositions or previous knowledge. People generally assume that falsities are any inversions of currently understood truths or opposites of correspondence to previous knowledge. In each case, untruth is conceived as any nonaccord.

  • However the very basis of accord (that which is according to) is limited to ones current tools and methodology from scientific discovery. Since, when we encounter new scientific discoveries we are pressed to find new methodologies to explain new types of worldly phenomena.

    Therefor it is pointless to argue with fools who reject new ideas as "pseudoscience" based on non-accord, without also testing the limits which they base their conclusions upon...

  • Arguing with these closed minded idiots is a complete waste of time... They have nothing significant to contribute to the conversation.

    They are not even worth wasting your energy to talk to... Ever hear the expression

    "Don't cast your pearls before swine?"

    They have no appreciation for a deeper understanding of the Universe and only care about pouring their derision onto others...

    Galileo was a complete pseudoscientific quack too... (According to the Church)

  • "Crackpot theory claims to overturn the Standard Model, replacing the quark description of the proton by claiming it is actually a black hole with no internal structure.

    The sum total of supporting citation for this article is a single reference to an obscure "award" from a "Computing Anticipatory Systems" (not peer reviewed by physicists)."

    Wiki

  • Here's a question. The reason the Planck scale is so much smaller than the nuclear scale is because gravity is so much weaker than the strong force. So if you scale the mass of a proton up to the mass of a proton-sized black hole, how could the gravitational force between these proton-sized black holes be anything other than the strong force? He's saying hey, if I divide 20 by ten, and then multiply 4 by ten, and times them together, I STILL GET 80! This is SIGNIFICANT! It means 4 is really 40!

  • @TheBobathon Nassim's theory is suggesting that there is no weak or strong force, though. There seem to be two real forces, expansion/contraction, exist together to create the quantized scales of perception. It's not one force's strength that keeps it from collapsing, it's a series of akashic distortions refracting light into mass. The fractal refines itself (collapsing), while growing in space (expanding), creating the patterns we recognize as mass. Matter is varying sizes of prisms.

  • The mechanism for producing the observed proton mass from this theoretical Schwarzschild Proton Mass, may lead to the development of Inertial Mass Cancellation Technologies...

    That may explain why UFOs can take 90 degree turns at over 17,000 mph as they've been tracked on radar doing...

    I'm not saying it's true... Just trying to think outside the box, and think critically.

  • "Try adding in black holes of different sizes, instead of just a Planck black hole."

    I'm pretty sure the radius of a black hole changes proportional to it's mass... If you could provide us with some data on this I am willing to look at it.

  • No, you're right Alien - I'd misread the graph, I take that back. He sets his proton up with the assumption that it's somehow a black hole anyway! So it was a bad example, my apologies.

    Supermassive black holes are significantly off to the left... planets certainly way off to the right, and try putting atoms on there - far further out than standard proton. The thing is, if protons should truly be regarded as weighing a billion tons each (as per graph), what about the things made from them?

  • Of all the controversial subjects I have posted videos on, I have never been so violently attacked as I have been for attempting to explore Nassim Haramein's theories... I cover topics like UFOs and Aliens which certainly receive their share of harsh criticism, but it's nothing compared to the backlash I've received from posting videos on Haramein's theory of the Schwarzschild proton...

    I like to keep an open mind and explore new ideas in physics, people are entitled to their own opinions...

  • @TheBobathon, All I've done is attempt to research further into Nassim's work, instead of reject it and ridicule it our-right like you've done...

    This IS SCIENCE! It's the VERY ESSENCE OF BEING SCIENTIFIC!

    People use the term "pseudo-science" all the time. It's a very convenient term to use when they want to discredit something, and not actually use any argument. This is called "Proof by Stereotype" I believe it was coined by Walter Lippman...

  • Haha, fair enough. You're a slippery one. People use it all the time? Not my experience, but it's clearly not my place to try to deny yours.

    I'm sorry, but it seems clear to me that it's awful science - wild claims, tenuous links, schoolboy mistakes (connecting Planck length to phi ratio because it starts with a 1 and a 6?? seriously??), glossed-over factual incoherencies (a proton contains the same mass as the universe! AND it weighs a billion tons too!),

  • no actual physical implications, no references apart from their own writing and a couple of basic textbooks, and an army of 'fans' who claim to understand it but treat any sort of criticism as if it's an attack by the boxed-in science establishment. The quantum vacuum density value he bases it all on is pretty arbitrary anyway - it's never been measured, and theoretical values range from 10^30 to 10^92 g/cm3 - there's no rationale for his choice.

  • It's a classic case of finding a set of numbers that give something that looks right, and sticking it on paper. The things chosen for the scaling law plot are also chosen to make it work. Try adding in black holes of different sizes, instead of just a Planck black hole? That would mess it right up. It's quite ridiculous, I'm afraid, and quite laughable. I can only conclude that you'd have to be pretty unquestioning to take it seriously.

  • But you're right - it's certainly not my place to tell people what they should be interested in, and if they want to pay for this kind of shite, I'm hardly going to put them off by being rational. Sorry for the unscientific language there. (Wouldn't call it misleading, though.)

    Thanks for the discussion though - at least you're engaging with people who disagree with you, which is more than can be said for a lot of these sites. I do think that's commendable.

  • Again you are making the assumption that I fully support Haramein's theory... I am simply being open minded and considering all possibilities. Most of physics is based on finding a set of numbers that give something that looks right and sticking it on paper... That's called theoretical physics, and you can't compare it to Bach-Kabbalists...

    No theory has even been proven right in science. You can only prove things wrong...

    If that's your conclusion, maybe you need to ask deeper questions...

  • Look, I know I've criticised you for defending something I find objectionably fake - which you strongly have been - but it's not for anything else I've seen on your site, which I have a lot of respect for.

    I particularly liked your 2012 what's really going to happen video. You're an intelligent and skilled chap in this line of things. I'm sorry you ended up taking the brunt of this - it's honestly not directed at you personally (I didn't say you were a fan, for a start, just that he had them)

  • If ithis stuff is receiving more than the normal share of detractors (and I know it's not just me), then please don't just put it down to people being prejudiced or hateful (let alone "violent"!) - there really are far more plausible reasons for it.

    As you say, theories can only be proved wrong. I wonder what it would take for you to feel this had happened? Hiding away in a realm of total unprovability will never make anything valid, especially if its so full of holes.

  • Like I said, I am aware of the flaws in this theory that you and others have pointed out, and I plan to fully address these issues when I interview Nassim for my channel...

    I don't plan on hiding anything away.

    Check out the "Zero Theory" page on my website. It's incomplete, but there may yet be another explanation for these "holes" you speak of... The idea of every proton containing a reflection of the universe is not quite so far out...

  • Even Scientific American has published articles on the Holographic Universe theory, so I don't find the idea of Protons containing a reflection of the outside universe quite so far fetched...

    The mechanism for producing the observed proton mass from this theoretical Schwarzschild Proton Mass, may lead to the development of Inertial Mass Cancellation Technologies...

    That may explain why UFOs can take 90 degree turns at over 17,000 mph as they've been tracked on radar doing...

  • Of all the controversial subjects I have posted videos on, I have never been so violently attacked as I have been for attempting to explore Nassim Haramein's theories... I cover topics like UFOs and Aliens which certainly receive their share of harsh criticism, but it's nothing compared to the backlash I've received from posting videos on Haramein's theory of the Schwarzschild proton...

    BTW, I never said I was a "fan" of his...

    Again you are manufacturing stereotypes to prove a point...

  • I plan on conducting an Interview with Nassim Haramein for my channel shortly to probe deeper into the idea that Protons satisfy the Shwarzschild condition and can effectively be used to derive the magnitude and interaction time of the Strong Nuclear Force.

    If anyone has any questions they would like asked please send them to me via PM with "Nassim" in the Subject heading. Thanks!

    I am a neutral party scientist, just trying to shed some light on this subject for others.

  • @TheBobathon,

    This comment forum is for discussion of Haramein's Schwarzschild Proton Paper. This paper shows a possible derivation of the Strong Nuclear Force, which is underivable through the Standard Model...

    We're not talking about Marko Rodin or any of Nassim's other lectures here...

    As a scientist, I am genuinely interested in Haramein's Theory as a possible explanation for the observed phenomena. Unlike you, I don't let my opinions of Haramein's other work influence this in any way.

  • All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) Imagine that, the world isn't flat and the Binary Code is obsolete because of Rodin Math. Or sit and watch the sun as it revolves around the Earth.

    indie3 & TheBobathon, are you willing to have a live debate with me and Haramein?

  • Well, I just tried to start a debate and your response was to call me closed-minded ignoramus, to want to laugh in my face as soon as you're proved right, to call me manipulative, to advise me to 'get off Haramein's dick' (what's that mean anyway?) and do something with my life. I don't really see much value in that kind of a 'debate', personally. And if that's what you think of me, I find it hard to understand why you'd be so keen yourself. But thanks anyway, I appreciate the offer.

  • I pointed out your manipulation of words. The fact that you repeated POSITS over and over to make them appear as actual facts... That's not a debate, that's a known propaganda technique.

    You are obviously way too obsessed with Nassim Haramein, and by "get off his dick" I meant "take his penis out of your mouth"... it's a figure of speech that's used to describe people that are overly obsessed with someone. Which you clearly are, or you wouldn't have posted an 8 part comment...

  • My point was - from having watched him try to explain a very straightforward mathematical concept, making it out to be something cosmic, and making dumb elementary mathematical mistakes in the process - that it seems to me that he is a bit clueless. Therefore for him to make grand claims about there being a universe in every proton is not something to take seriously. I think that's a very clear, rational point to make. As I said, if you want me to explain the maths, I'd be happy to debate that.

  • I also pointed you to a very clear and well-argued forum post explaining the lack of substance this particular paper, in some detail. Clear facts, clear claim, reasonably easy to understand.

    Re penises - are you accusing me of devoting youtube videos to the guy's work and defending it with tooth and nail from all those who don't treat it with reverence? :-)

  • I did a search for "haramein vibenhance", and read all the posts by Count Blah for what came up under Google. He was not calm at all... I could not find any mathematical arguments whatsoever, lest the ones you were referring to.

    I am defending MYSELF, you came here and posted on MY channel accusing people of being fakes for considering alternative views of physics... You said we were all frauds and "Charlatans" just trying to get people's money...

    I am only trying to EXPLORE PHYSICS!

  • I want you to send me an audio file of your best argument against the maths to me so I can play your question for Nassim when I interview him...

    I want to be as neutral as possible about this. Nassim had a wikipedia page, but since anyone can edit it, all sorts of people wrote some pretty messed up things about him trying to discredit him...

    You have the right to your opinion that "he is a bit clueless", a lot of other people think he's brilliant.

  • That's fair enough, Alien. Maths doesn't really work on audio, and I'm no video whizz, so I'll post a pdf somewhere soon if I can find the time at the weekend.

  • @TheBobathon, according to you, most of Nassim's listeners don't understand math and won't pay attention to it anyway... Send me a link to the .PDF file when you post it and I'll forward it to Nassim...

    Email me the audio file as I described in the PM I sent you, and I will play your question or argument for Nassim when I interview him. That's the best I can offer you...

  • @ TheBobathon, Your mind is closed! You didn't even listen to what was being discussed in the video, you just came here and went on an 8 comment TIRADE of other stuff Nassim or Marko Rodin said (totally unrelated to what I am interested in discussing)

    Now, again: I will be interviewing Nassim to talk about the "Schwarzschild Proton" paper in 2-3 weeks. I want to gather questions from critics and supporters alike. I want to get to the bottom of this, and I won't be persuaded by ridicule...

  • Hello? I thought you just suggested I send you an audio file about the maths - I just replied to say I'd do what you asked. Calm yourself, my good man. What on earth do you hear when people speak.

    (Sorry if I wasn't supposed to call you Alien - I didn't mean any offence.)

    I wasn't accusing you of anything earlier either, let me clear that up. I was talking about people making claims about the ultimate mysteries of the universe and extorting money for it. I had hoped that was clear.

  • Actually I think it's time I left this little world to peer up its own arsehole without any more of my interference. It's been most illuminating (though I do find the science here pretty silly - no doubt because my mind is so closed etc. etc., - my own fault, of course) It's been fun, though.

    PS thanks indie3 :)

  • Call it "silly" all you want, I am only persuaded by facts and evidence. NOT ridicule...

    Ridicule and intimidation have the opposite effect on me.

    I'm glad this has been illuminating to your dark little world-in-a-box... You've obviously got it ALL figured out...

    Send me an audio file of your best questions about and/or arguments against Nassim's theory on the Schwarzschild Proton, and I will play it for him during the interview.

  • Sorry, me again - I couldn't resist. I just came across the Wikipedia page on pseudoscience - there's a bullet-point list for identifying it. Have you seen it? It so perfectly describes you and the people you promote - practically every last point on the list - it's really quite remarkable. No joke - I'm serious.

    You'd probably better delete this comment, at least, otherwise people might get the idea that it's all a sham.

    Have fun out there. :-)

  • @TheBobathon,

    "Evasion of peer review before publicizing results" -Kind of like Murray Gell-Man when he published his paper postulating the existence of quarks?

    "Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims." - hmm? Like String Theory?

    Here's two you're guilty of, no doubt:

    Personalization of issues

    Use of misleading language

    So you're 'pseudo-science' too according to these definitions...

  • @AlienScientist String theory is not part of the standard model strictly because of this reason.

  • I'm saving all this as it comes along :)

  • I am not saying I support this theory... That's a ridiculous stance to take in science. In fact the point of science is to constantly challenge and test all of your theories, and try to prove them wrong.

    I really want to get to the bottom of this one way or another, I'm not so quick to throw away any theory that might lead to a unified understanding of physics... Especially one that shows possible derivation of the Strong Nuclear Force... ATTACK THE THEORY! Not the messenger...

  • EXTORTION:

    The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent. USC 18

    The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2)

    Again, you are manipulative using words...

  • @Bobathon. I agree 100% with every last word you said !! I could not have put it better myself (I have saved all your comments in case they are deleted). I too, am appalled at the pseudoscience being propagated by the likes of Haramein, and even more so the outright fakery of people like Rodin, Hutchison, etc, when there is so much superb real science out there. Thank you for restoring my faith in Youtubers!

  • Ok, I'll try not to swear, and maybe you won't delete it this time. :-)

    Part 1. My concern here is that these guys (Haramein, Rodin,...) are putting up videos, websites, attempts at wikipedia entries, etc. where they throw around mathematical and physical terms and concepts with no real understanding of what they're talking about. They make every effort to sound impressive and authoritative, claim to have found spiritual answers to the mysteries of the universe, play the maverick card and...

  • Part 2. ...claim their funding has been withdrawn and ask for donations. They've clearly amassed lots of followers - I'd claim that these are rather gullible people with no serious scientific or mathematical understanding and who think it's ok that they don't understand what these guys are talking about because it sounds cool. These guys are fakes trying to get followers and make money out of people.

    ...

  • Part 3. ... I've come here from a video called Phi ratio meets vortex-based something-or-other, which showed Haramein making claims about a 'phi-spiral' which were - and this will be clear to any mathematician - (a) not about anything mysterious at all - enclosed logarithmic spirals are something I could easily set to any of my A-level maths students, (b) blatantly false (I've explained why under that video - I'll give more details to anyone who's interested), ...

  • Part 4. ... and (c) he's not even using a pure phi-spiral - it's just one cobbled together out of quarter-circles on a CAD program.

    I'm clearly not the first to claim that these guys are fakers - plenty of scientifically-literate folks have said so too. The obvious retort to these claims, always at hand, is that unorthodox thinkers are often ridiculed or shunned. That may be true - but ridiculous hoaxers are also ridiculed and shunned, so it hardly constitutes an argument. ...

  • Part 5. ... The other easy retort is that concrete scientific or mathematical arguments aren't given to back up the claims that they're talking nonsense. That doesn't constitute an argument either, because they're talking nonsense - if they were making actual predictions or claims instead of vague waffle, there'd be something to argue with. I've given an example of the awful schoolboy maths from the phi ratio vortex video. ...

  • Part 6. ... His main argument goes along the lines of "Man, this number here looks a bit like that number there! Like wow!" There's basically no content - it's all regurgitated terminology and physics from the popular science shelf, passed off as solving significant mysteries of the cosmos and spiritual consciousness bla bla, and people fall for it, which to me seems a real shame when there's so much amazing science out there that isn't made up. ...

  • Part 7. ... I'm not coming from any 'hatred' of other ways of thinging - I'm genuinely concerned here. Wouldn't you be if you thought the same? I hope that you're not just too hardened to these sorts of claims by now, because then you wouldn't be interested in responding at all. And I'm interested to know what you think of this.

  • @TheBobathon, well maybe you should be "generally concerned" about something else... I don't sell this stuff for a profit... I am generally interested in altering views of science. I am not a closed minded ignoramus like yourself. This is YOU TUBE! If you are that concerned, make some videos educating people on something. Not just sit around and thrash people for thinking outside of the box!

  • I am talking about the "Schwarzschild Proton Paper" not Nassim's gift for captivating audiences... Obviously some people find content in his work or they wouldn't pay to go see him...

    You don't have to... So why do you care so much what other people do and think?

    Thought precedes action. All Science is "Made Up" by someone... This IS amazing science... High energy physics like the LHC have no meaning on our physical dimension. Why is that more interesting than quasicrystals, etc.?

  • @TheBobathon, This is not an actual argument, repeating it doesn't make it any more true...

    The Strong Force in Modern Physics is infinite and was thrown into their equation to make it work. Haramein and Rauscher's paper shows an ACTUAL WAY TO DERIVE THE STRONG FORCE!

    You're completely off base here, and I'm going to laugh in your face so hard, when we make then next breakthrough in physics while you are still naysaying, and thinking inside of the box like you were taught...

  • The argument is whether they are "ridiculous hoaxers" or just unorthodox thinkers...

    You're wording here is very manipulative, and makes me question your motives, reasoning, and judgment.

  • @TheBobathon, Go bash Haramein on the appropriate video... Where he talks about whatever argument you are mistakenly trying to bring to MY YouTube Channel on a video where Nassim Haramein doesn't even say anything...

    You need to get off Haramein's Dick! Go find something else to do with your life... This is pathetic...

    Elizabeth Rauscher is a brilliant physicist, who co-authored the ONLY work, that I am endorsing here on this channel... You're way too obsessed with this...

  • Many thanks for your considered, mature and rational response.

    If you're interested in some analysis of the content of Nassim's paper, do a search for haramein vibenhance, and see the final post by Count Blah.

    My understanding is that science progresses by questionning and dissent, and that these things are to be welcomed and engaged with positively. Would you agree?

    My comments on the video I mentioned, by the way, - entirely on the maths - were deleted. If anyone's interested, let me know.

  • @TheBobathon, You said "These guys are fakes trying to get followers and make money out of people."

    This is a direct personal attack on me as well, because you are somehow suggesting that I too am a fake trying to make money, when I post all my videos for free on YouTube... So forgive me for taking the defensive.

    You also brought up several points attacking Nassim which are totally unrelated to the topic I am considering and attempting to bring discussion on. This is very distracting...

  • Oh what would science do without those Philosophers of Science such as Schopenhauer. lol. Well actually, science would do just fine without them. Philosophers of science are like music critics, they aren't the ones making the music and they often talk complete crap.

  • All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) Imagine that, the world isn't flat and the Binary Code is obsolete because of Rodin Math. Or sit and watch the sun as it revolves around the Earth.

  • Too many haters on this video...

    I want to point out that the origins of mass are unknown to modern physics... That's why we have the LHC looking for the Higgs Boson.

    Please post serious comments and questions below. I am going to start blocking people who don't have anything REAL to say...

  • @AlienScientist That is true but electroweak theory has nailed the masses of the intermediate vector bosons to such a high precision, the expectation is that the higgs must be within a 129 +/- 70 GeV range. It is simply the sole missing piece of a very precise theory. There are finely tuned parameters in Weinberg Salam theory which is troublesome, but these flaws are prevalent in all science and part of the why is the Universe the way it is question. Hopefully LHC finds a composite Higgs......

  • Excellent. Looks like I've really hit some nerves here. LMAO

    Bearden is a loon, he's been going on about his silly MEG for so many years, with an army of worshippers on the web trying to replicate it. But it never works, how can it, it's just a fucking transformer with a magnet stuck inthe middle. Pathetic.

    And you have no conception of what I have done.

  • You're right, the concept of "Nothing" is a difficult one to understand...

  • my view is that we are on a plane that is in transition as the material in the plane collapses into other planes. This happens at a constant but to us it seems to be an ever accelerating exponential figure as a component of a big bang. In other words we have it backwards. Combination properties might be self indexing for this.

  • I predict that Haramein will either, 1) Be forgotten fairly soon, joining the ranks of has-been cranks such as Tom Bearden. 2) Will confess, and admit it was all a hoax to sell DVDs and obtain funding. I hope he does the latter. It could be very entertaining. An expose(e) to match Alan Sokals expose of postmodernism.

    I predict that he will NOT, 1) Submit papers to any leading Physics journals, such as Nature. 2) Revolutionise anything at all.

  • @ Indie3, HAHAHA! You're calling Tom Bearden a crank too now? Saying that he's "forgotten"? More people know who Tom Bearden is than know who you are! What have YOU done?, besides sit here and talk shit about things you can't understand? Where are your videos breaking down the science and proving it wrong? Where are YOUR theories?

    In what peer review journals can we read YOUR papers? Where is YOUR revolution? HAHAHA, that's what I thought...

  • Rodin!!! hahahaa An even worse faker than Haramein! Why am I not surprised these two scammers hang out together. rofl!!!

  • I am inclined to believe Rodin is a scammer as well. When I met him in person I could tell he wasn't the genius that he put on to be. His "mathematics" make absolutely no sense. There's no comparing him to Haramein...

    Marko didn't even create the Rodin Coil you know? It was Russell P. Blake... The Rodin Coil is the only reason I was interested in him.

    Talk shit about Rodin all you want, Haramein's onto something...

  • No one ever called relativity pseudoscience. It was accepted when evidence supported it. They are not looking for smaller and smaller particles, why do you think they need higher energies, it's to create more massive particles, not smaller. Your raison d'etre is not science, it is to oppose anything and everything that you see as "mainstream". I genuinely believe you are mentally ill.

  • it's ironic because your comment was hardly worth reading. but it was worth commenting on.

  • There are a lot of computer-side critics here whom offer nothing but criticism. Any spaz with fingers can type a rebuttal.

    One important thing I gleaned from watching ALL of Nassim's videos was that the constant breaking-down of smaller and smaller particles to find the "god" particle - is a waste of time.

    All that will be found are smaller and smaller particles - then, if ever - nothing.

    "They" should be looking for a construct, not a particle.

  • i agree entirely with the search for a construct rather than a particle.

    marko rodin has a lot to offer concerning a 'construct'. he calls it the 'underpinning geometry of the universe'.

    great work AlienScientist.

  • While your still waiting for the LHC to go live and Discover your precious Higgs Boson, groundbreaking work is being done in the realm of theoretical physics based on experiments which have been ignored and called "psuedo science" by the mainstream.

    They used to call relativity "pseudo science" too... Some Scientists just can't think for themselves though, they have to go along with the STATUS QUO...

  • @AlienScientist When was that? Eddington demonstrated the deflection of starlight by a massive body in 1919, four years after Einstein published. Special Relativity was verified by the null result of Michelson-Morley in the previous century.....

  • What is the point of leaving a condescending comment on my video saying "it detracts from real science", and not give any explanation why? Obviously your goal wasn't a scientifically motivated one, or you would have attempted to educate and correct any mistakes you found. I am left to conclude your actions were ego driven. In the future, please leave a comment that is scientifically beneficial and relevant to the discussion or don't leave one at all...

  • Where there's Life there is Hope.

    Terence

    Where there's  Harramein there is hope.

    Me :)

  • Its refreshing to listen to him.

  • Using the conversion of light speed to equal time and space is good.

    I fooled with other ideas with the conversion and see where they lead me.....nothing interesting in the relationship yet, just an idea.

  • Haramein's theory has re-worked the way we look at the Proton, and showed us that the Strong Force can also be viewed as a product of Quantum Gravity.

    Frank Znidarsic's new paper shows how to classically calculate atomic photon interaction with electron orbitals and the Bohr model. If you read his conclusions in this paper you will see why there is an effort to suppress these new ideas in physics...

  • so long as the discussion continues and we keep working.........

  • I wish I was HALF this smart....... I need to go listen to more physics lectures....

  • hang on then i what just realised somthink (possibly) wrong with this:

    so if waves are spinning objects.

    and in a wave the more energe it has the higher the amplitude.

    for there to be a higher amp. there needs to be a bigger radious of the spinning object.

    so acording to you the more enery you put into a wave, that makes a larger spinning object somhow?

    i dont get how that would work in your terms...

  • Skeptics are important in achieving an objective view of reality, however, skeptism is not the same as reinforcing the official storyline. In fact, a conspiracy theory can be argued as an alternative to the official or mainstream story of events. Therefore, when skeptics attempt to ridicule a conspiracy theory by using the official story as a means of proving the conspiracy wrong, in effect, they are just reinforcing the original mainstream view of history, and actually not being skeptical.

  • @AlienScientist Here it is plain out in sight for you:

    You can make up anything you want, whatever your mind can think of. You can mismatch and fudge facts to present something that appears legitimate to the majority of ignorant people.

    But what you can't do is accept criticism or skepticism, because if you do, these conspiracy theories no longer hold water and fall to pieces.

    So the best thing to do is make money while you can, sell books, get publicity, and gain interest most of all.

  • What have I "made up"? If you want sources you are welcome to ask for them, if you are unable to find them for yourself.

    The 9/11 Commission Report does not hold weight under criticism and careful analysis (Read David Ray Griffin's books on it) proving that YES "You CAN mismatch and fudge facts to present something that appears legitimate to the majority of ignorant people."! Just like the Government did on 9/11 ... and has been doing for years....

  • @AlienScientist Oh good grief. You can find a a source for pretty much any conspiracy theory from Jim Marrs to those loose change bandits. The question is the soundness of their arguments.

  • @conman2317, when you have read the Alarming, uncomfortable, uncompromisingly savage details of the activities of psychopaths in charge of the military industrial complex through "Official" Lines, people like you are the repeaters of mismatched and fudged facts as the psychopaths want, the comspiracy is over when the action is taken and the reality unfolds impirically.

  • @AlienScientist

    Check out the work of

    Jerry Reynard.

    Nassim Haramein, ought to get together with him!

    cr-theory. org/ default. aspx#intro

    seriously!

  • if waves of rotating objects then how come electromagnetic waves can pass through vaccumes (which is a lack of atoms, particles and matter)?

  • ask yourself how can radio waves fly trough space...

  • Your view of the vacuum is incorrect... Most of an atom is actually made up of vacuum. Sub-atomic particles are constantly slipping in and out of existence through the vacuum.

    The vacuum is more like a polarizable medium than simple empty space. The electric and magnetic components of the vacuum are known as the "permittivity" and "permeability" of free space. When you multiply them together you get 1/ the speed of light squared (1/c^2).

  • well.... thank you ^^ thats cleared that up nicely... well done!

  • thanks for your videos, alienscientist. Isnt nassim's theory just amazing! Nassim mentioned that hes working on technology based on his theory, Have you heard anything of this?

  • Oh drat!

    I seem to have slept thought this show. I've been studying into the wee hours lately.

    I would have liked talking with you guy about Nassim's paper.

    Till next time,

    Fred B

  • I hear you, I'm just aggressive by nature... probably something to do with growing up in Boston with the rest of the Massholes...

    Trolls are a lot like bullies, always looking for someone they can push around... I learned how to deal with that at an early age.

  • I work with complex, exponential, logarithmic, etc. data on a daily basis. These people are using these notions to captivate people who know little about math. In conclusion, this video is silly.

  • "These People"? How are you bringing me into this now? Those were Bill Alek's words not mine... BTW he said "Improper Integral" and you didn't even pick up on that or get that right... How much do YOU know about math?

    If I have to peer review Bill's paper and post it on my website I will... I already pointed out a major flaw in the entire basis of his mathematical theory, with his idea about 1/2mv^2....

  • Clearly you don't have a clue what you are saying. You have tried to capture readers' attentions by offering some bullshit notion that you deal with math daily. Prove it.

  • Atoms are broken down to smaller ans smaller parts...Sometimes I think the particles (which are neither here nor there or in 2 places at once, a wave and/or a particle) are actually thought or consciousness itself. We create matter and have the ability to change it at will (or at least our "collective consciousness" does) our whole Universe is in such a small space surrounded by other Universes....

  • i've had similar thoughts

  • Why are people drawn to this fake pseudo science crap? There are so many interesting things to learn about and study in real science, yet here so much energy and thought is put into hoaxing people into believing something that's not even real.