Black WHole

[0.0001 mass]

Hi guys,

 

I wondered if anyone on here has watched nassim Haramein's latest vid on his award winning paper regarding his theories on physics. I am keen in talking about all aspects of life, philosophy and new up and comming theories. I have been reading alot of Tao the last couple of years amongst other ancient scrips regarding knowledge, i find it amazing the our ancestors talk about physics in their own way. Nassim is more than aware of this and it shows in his work, he is a person that likes to think outside of the box as do i, i understand its not eveyones view but i will glad to hear what you have to say on Black Whole as i value your oppinion and will take on board what is said in discussion to hopefully further my understanding.

I have joined this forum as i find that there are not many people around me to talk about the things i wish to discuss, most people around preffer to gossip about the nieghbours, TV and other things i feel to me are not as important, so i hope to find some like minded people on here

 

I will post a link to the vid, its about 1hr 30 mins, i hope you enjoy it and that at least there is something you feel you wish to discuss whether you agree with it or not.

LINK- http://www.veoh.com/watch/v211655826NC94xJz

You can download it if you wish.

 

I look forward to hearing your views.

 

regards

scott

[timo]

I have had publications being cross-listed in other journals and being selected as a "research highlight" by the publisher. But I didn't know that there are actual awards for papers.

Edited October 22, 2011 by timo

[0.0001 mass]

I have had publications being cross-listed in other journals and being selected as a "research highlight" by the publisher. But I didn't know that there are actual awards for papers.

 

 

Hi Timo, on one of his live lectures he talks about recieving an award, he was going to be leaving early from the country in which it was hosted, thinking that with his view on matters he would not be up for an award. They had to explain to him that he was in the running so he would stay for the award, of which to the best of my knowledge he recieved one. I could try to find the live lecture if you wish a look at it. The live one is basically the same as the vid i have posted in the link.

 

Have you seen the Black Whole presentation before?

[timo]

No, I've not heard about "Black Whole" before (I actually though it was a typo of yours until I realized that is indeed the intended spelling). I am in fact not interested to hear more about it, and I am about to tell you why:

 

Since I have never encountered a "best paper award" before I looked around a bit what that actually means. It turns out it refers to an award being given at a non-physics conference for the best physics related talk, out of ~8 talks in total. Now, best out of eight talks is not so bad, and as a matter of fact an academic outsider making the first place against professional physicists or professionally-guided PhD students would still be quite impressive, right? Well, I don't know the conference but I checked the backgrounds of a few of the potential competitors for this "best talk/paper in the physics section" prize. I could only find the program of the 2011 conference, but it seems that that conference's physics sessions hosts speakers which are not exactly mainstream. For example Gilles Nibart, whose affiliation is given with "Laboratoire de Physique Theorique Fondamentale de Paris" ("Paris laboratory for fundamental theoretical physics"). His workplace is extremely prestigious as I have not even heard of that elite lab before, and seems to have only two scientists with a total of zero publications in the traditional sense (meaning publishing in a journal rather than putting a pdf on your homepage). Next randomly-picked competitor is Franz-Guenter Winkler who actually has two papers on arXiv, presumably from the time that one didn't require an endorsement to publish there. According to NASA ADS he accumulates a total of one citation on his scientific work: the later paper cites the earlier one. The other people I checked did not have very strong academic affiliations, either (to say the least). Now, nothing against people without a mainstream academic background. But it seems that this CASYS conference either is a conference for academic outsiders or that it is a proper conference and "Physics" is the crackpot session, that some conferences have.

 

So Mr. Haramein won a "best talk/paper out of eight laymen" prize at a conference. All nice and fine so far. Now here comes my problem: When I go to the homepage of "The Resonance Project" this prize is being sold to me as the "prestigious 'Best Paper Award' in the field of physics, quantum mechanics, relativity, field theory, and gravitation". Such a description for me indicates a lack of either honesty or sanity. In either case that is the point where I stop considering.

Edited October 22, 2011 by timo

[0.0001 mass]

No, I've not heard about "Black Whole" before (I actually though it was a typo of yours until I realized that is indeed the intended spelling). I am in fact not interested to hear more about it, and I am about to tell you why:

 

Since I have never encountered a "best paper award" before I looked around a bit what that actually means. It turns out it refers to an award being given at a non-physics conference for the best physics related talk, out of ~8 talks in total. Now, best out of eight talks is not so bad, and as a matter of fact an academic outsider making the first place against professional physicists or professionally-guided PhD students would still be quite impressive, right? Well, I don't know the conference but I checked the backgrounds of a few of the potential competitors for this "best talk/paper in the physics section" prize. I could only find the program of the 2011 conference, but it seems that that conference's physics sessions hosts speakers which are not exactly mainstream. For example Gilles Nibart, whose affiliation is given with "Laboratoire de Physique Theorique Fondamentale de Paris" ("Paris laboratory for fundamental theoretical physics"). His workplace is extremely prestigious as I have not even heard of that elite lab before, and seems to have only two scientists with a total of zero publications in the traditional sense (meaning publishing in a journal rather than putting a pdf on your homepage). Next randomly-picked competitor is Franz-Guenter Winkler who actually has two papers on arXiv, presumably from the time that one didn't require an endorsement to publish there. According to NASA ADS he accumulates a total of one citation on his scientific work: the later paper cites the earlier one. The other people I checked did not have very strong academic affiliations, either (to say the least). Now, nothing against people without a mainstream academic background. But it seems that this CASYS conference either is a conference for academic outsiders or that it is a proper conference and "Physics" is the crackpot session, that some conferences have.

 

So Mr. Haramein won a "best talk/paper out of eight laymen" prize at a conference. All nice and fine so far. Now here comes my problem: When I go to the homepage of "The Resonance Project" this prize is being sold to me as the "prestigious 'Best Paper Award' in the field of physics, quantum mechanics, relativity, field theory, and gravitation". Such a description for me indicates a lack of either honesty or sanity. In either case that is the point where I stop considering.

 

Hi Timo,

 

Excellent, you see this is why i need to chat with the likes of your self, what would be far better is rather than you disgarding the content of the vid on this discrepansy that you have with out a doubt cleverly looked looked into and assessed, but also check the content of the vid, as you have proved your worth finding this information out about the award you are without a doubt the type of brain that should be looking at the information in the videos....and who knows, you might even enjoy it

I really am wanting to pick away at the vids content to see if his theories add up or whether they are just some cleverly put together pieces of disinformation for the unsuspecting public.

 

Kind regards

scott

[0.0001 mass]

ahh well, i would of hoped intellegent people would like tolook at the actual content held with in the vid and debate it but looks like general ignorance and snobery is going to be the case (not intending to offend you here Timo), i was hoping this wasnt so, if are to learn in life we need to look at all angles. There is always something to learn, every day. I was hoping that maybe on here people would have the scope to actually discuss these matters and their actual content to see if any truth holds up to them, who knows, maybe there is....maybe there isnt, but there could well be a half truth and that could inspire poeple on to the right path.

 

Lets face it, all we are assuming is probabilities, i mean look at in Bhor's day, the neuclues of an atom was said to be pear shaped with springs comong off it, that of which electrodes were attached and emmitted light when excited, this is what they thought when they were studdying the production of light. Laughble today, but again all we can do with quantumn mechanics/ physics is guess the probabilities and even those are statistical and do not apply to every eventuality.

 

It would be nice for more people to discuss.

 

regards

scott

[CaptainPanic]

ahh well, i would of hoped intellegent people would like tolook at the actual content held with in the vid and debate it but looks like general ignorance and snobery is going to be the case [...]

Well, there is one problem: that video is 1 hour, 32 minutes!! I do not want to watch such a long video if I do not know the point of it.

In fact, almost every scientific field can be summarized in just 1 minute. But the video avoids explaining what it is about for 5 minutes.

 

In the introduction, which I actually watched, the narrator says that this great scientist finally met other "believers who supported his efforts". That already makes me skeptical of the whole thing. Wo needs believers in science? Can't you just prove it?

 

Then, it continues for 5 minutes not explaining the point of the video. And then it ended, and told me I have to download some player to see the rest. Well, I will not install software just so I can see the rest of it... so I guess this 5 minute introduction is all I have to form an opinion. But there is nothing to form an opinion about.

 

So, I guess I need to ask you to summarize the actual research for us, because I have no idea about it... and I will not invest so much time to find out.

[Ophiolite]

i was hoping this wasnt so, if are to learn in life we need to look at all angles.

Would you spend a lot of time asking your florist about treatment of your bowel cancer?

[insane_alien]

Would you spend a lot of time asking your florist about treatment of your bowel cancer?

 

maybe about the flower arrangement for my funeral afterwords. (I'm thinking "£$! bowel cancer in the #@£")

[0.0001 mass]

Would you spend a lot of time asking your florist about treatment of your bowel cancer?

 

well that would depend on the types of flowers

 

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo....&portrait=0" width="400" height="265" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen allowFullScreen>

 

 

this vid should be the whole version. *edit* i could not get the code to work, im not that familure with this forum, so ive just posted it.

 

Its just there are so many things which the man is saying in this vid, something i feel everyone should have a look at to determin validity of his theories and equations, i have my reservations on certain matters, just little things i pick up that make me feel as if theres something amiss, but theres also some very thought provoking material which, if you have an interest in the science you cant help but like to explore, this is why im asking you guys and trying to encourage you to take a look if you have the time to spare im sure you can get some enjoyment out of thie vid regardless of the reason, good or bad.

 

regards

scott

Edited October 24, 2011 by 0.0001 mass

[CaptainPanic]

Ok, I checked the movie a little (although I still think you could provide a little more info regarding its contents).

 

I have to say that he seems to correctly question some weak points in our existing theories. Maybe I'll watch the rest later. It takes quite a long time until the guy comes to the point... (too long for a coffee break).

[timo]

Would you spend a lot of time asking your florist about treatment of your bowel cancer?

Not if the florist mis-advocates his cancer treatment experience with a former "prestigious position at Harvard medical school" when he actually was the gardener there .

[Phi for All]

Excellent, you see this is why i need to chat with the likes of your self, what would be far better is rather than you disgarding the content of the vid on this discrepansy that you have with out a doubt cleverly looked looked into and assessed, but also check the content of the vid, as you have proved your worth finding this information out about the award you are without a doubt the type of brain that should be looking at the information in the videos....and who knows, you might even enjoy it

 

ahh well, i would of hoped intellegent people would like tolook at the actual content held with in the vid and debate it but looks like general ignorance and snobery is going to be the case (not intending to offend you here Timo), i was hoping this wasnt so, if are to learn in life we need to look at all angles.

 

Its just there are so many things which the man is saying in this vid, something i feel everyone should have a look at to determin validity of his theories and equations, i have my reservations on certain matters, just little things i pick up that make me feel as if theres something amiss, but theres also some very thought provoking material which, if you have an interest in the science you cant help but like to explore, this is why im asking you guys and trying to encourage you to take a look if you have the time to spare im sure you can get some enjoyment out of thie vid regardless of the reason, good or bad.

I don't normally allow first-time posters to join and post links to off-site offerings. I allowed this because it was free and seemed to at least be science-oriented.

 

But you seem more interested in having people watch the video rather than discuss its contents. You flatter and cajole and claim to wonder about the content without ever mentioning much of the content. You talk about equations without ever posting any.

 

Frankly, you make it seem as though you have a vested interest that goes beyond mere scientific curiosity.

[0.0001 mass]

I don't normally allow first-time posters to join and post links to off-site offerings. I allowed this because it was free and seemed to at least be science-oriented.

 

But you seem more interested in having people watch the video rather than discuss its contents. You flatter and cajole and claim to wonder about the content without ever mentioning much of the content. You talk about equations without ever posting any.

 

Frankly, you make it seem as though you have a vested interest that goes beyond mere scientific curiosity.

 

Hi Phi,

please accept my appologies, I see where you are comming from, it could appear that i am just spamming the site for some reason but my post is genuine interest on the subject, i just tend to beat about the bush, i cant help it, its just the way i come accross . My reasons for this were that there is alot of information going on with in the video and rather than try to cut it down into sections where i might distort what the content infact is as opposed to what it could turn out like if i explained it in my own way, i thought that if people watched it they would percieve their own views on the matter without my hand influencing their oppinion in any way regarding the content of the vid.

 

There are a few bits in perticular i would like to discuss with people and im sort of testing the water to see if i am in amongst the right type of poeple.

The part where Nassim says he is proving that Finite and infinate can both be as one as opposed to seperate as is generally regarded, so he says. he draws a circle which in it has a finite amount of space due to its boundary, but he further states that this fininte space has the propperties of infinity. He goes on to demonstrate how and why. (unrelated,I would like to know why he uses a triangle then another as its opposite pole, does he do this just for the convienence of/for his illistration?) Do you think this is important and accurate in that it will bind the Two opposing views on science toghether?

 

Another bit that interests is whan he starts to scale everything on the Plank scale, now i am certainly not mathimatically minded and thus rely on information given, he states that Space has more energy than matter, by some 10-39 cm3. I would like to know what the people on here who are gifted with this type of understanding have to say on the matter? (no pun)

 

He goes on to say that everything is a black hole and creates matter, im not the best person to explain it, i would have to watch it again, but i do want to know what your view on this statement is, but i imagine you would need to watch the vid to see where i am comming from. This is why i asked people to watch it, its not easy for me to describe, but i would like a better understanding on it from more people so its unbias. Thankyou for letting me keep the post and the link, im sure the more this topic unfolds the more the science will be produced.

 

Another thing that gets my brain ticking is why Nassim heralds the 64 star tetrahedron metric in such high reggard, i see other more left wing theorists doing the same with the Dodecahedron. I am simply just trying to see what truth is in what they say, regardless of how the messenger appears.

 

regards

scott

 

Ps I just tried to edit the first post to add in information, it appears i can only edit my last recent post.

Edited October 24, 2011 by 0.0001 mass

[baric]

He goes on to say that everything is a black hole and creates matter, im not the best person to explain it,

 

Has he published any peer-reviewed papers on this topic? If so, can you provide a link and I'll be happy to read it.

[timo]

Has he published any peer-reviewed papers on this topic? If so, can you provide a link and I'll be happy to read it.

You may want to have a look at the website and find the "award winning publication" that was talked about earlier. It has been published in a conference proceeding of presumably the conference where he won the award. Conference proceedings are reviewed (at least mine went through the normal process of being reviewed by two referees). To what extent the review process of a non-physics conference counts as a peer-review for a paper that supposedly is about physics may be up for debate. But the publications can all be found on the website of "the Resonance Project". Happy reading .

[baric]

You may want to have a look at the website and find the "award winning publication" that was talked about earlier. It has been published in a conference proceeding of presumably the conference where he won the award. Conference proceedings are reviewed (at least mine went through the normal process of being reviewed by two referees). To what extent the review process of a non-physics conference counts as a peer-review for a paper that supposedly is about physics may be up for debate. But the publications can all be found on the website of "the Resonance Project". Happy reading .

 

Wow, such far-ranging conclusions from a paper less than 6 pages long and only 15 minutes to read.

 

It's basically a long train of assertions with supporting equations, but no real meat to each one other than essentially "and this equation demonstrates it" before moving to the next assertion.

 

One red flag is that many standard constants were explicitly referenced, such as c and G, which is slightly unusual for a technical paper. Anyone knowledgeable enough to slog through that paper does not need to be reminded of the specific values for those constants. My "fluff" alert was ringing constantly throughout the paper.

 

As best as I can tell, the basic gist of his theory is that protons are much denser than currently thought, and thus their smaller radii allows for a unification of the gravitational and strong nuclear forces.

 

However, what really confused me is that there is absolutely zero mention of the current understanding of the proton as not being a single particle, but actually a hadron composed of three quarks. If the proton is actually much more compact than this currently believed, then there would seem to be ramifications on this and should at least be mentioned.

 

After all, the paper is only 6 pages long, and that's INCLUDING the abstract, references and a full page devoted to a chart & table. His "conclusions" are just 4 sentences restating the introduction and there are no testable predictions.

 

The author clearly had plenty of time to discuss this subject in more detail and chose not to. Given that and the fact that his website is just spamming for DVD sales makes me think he's hyping a wild theory for money.

 

It's not the first time, and it won't be the last. I'll wait until he submits a more thorough paper to a scientific journal before assuming his conclusions are legitimate.

[0.0001 mass]

Wow, such far-ranging conclusions from a paper less than 6 pages long and only 15 minutes to read.

 

It's basically a long train of assertions with supporting equations, but no real meat to each one other than essentially "and this equation demonstrates it" before moving to the next assertion.

 

One red flag is that many standard constants were explicitly referenced, such as c and G, which is slightly unusual for a technical paper. Anyone knowledgeable enough to slog through that paper does not need to be reminded of the specific values for those constants. My "fluff" alert was ringing constantly throughout the paper.

 

As best as I can tell, the basic gist of his theory is that protons are much denser than currently thought, and thus their smaller radii allows for a unification of the gravitational and strong nuclear forces.

 

However, what really confused me is that there is absolutely zero mention of the current understanding of the proton as not being a single particle, but actually a hadron composed of three quarks. If the proton is actually much more compact than this currently believed, then there would seem to be ramifications on this and should at least be mentioned.

 

After all, the paper is only 6 pages long, and that's INCLUDING the abstract, references and a full page devoted to a chart & table. His "conclusions" are just 4 sentences restating the introduction and there are no testable predictions.

 

The author clearly had plenty of time to discuss this subject in more detail and chose not to. Given that and the fact that his website is just spamming for DVD sales makes me think he's hyping a wild theory for money.

 

It's not the first time, and it won't be the last. I'll wait until he submits a more thorough paper to a scientific journal before assuming his conclusions are legitimate.

 

It is a shame, i was sort of hoping this wasnt the case as i quite like some of the theories, i make no attempt to hide the fact i am someone who likes to read things esoteric, Tao etc and i find that Quantum physics is quite well described in some relations, this is what basically got me interested on this subject if im totally honest, but im not one for believing everything anyone says, which is why i came on here to talk with the likes of you guys who are better clued up with the subjects at hand.

I have Emailed his company in the past for more explanations and even offering to volunteer for his non proffit orginisation, at least this way i would know what is going on behind the doors, but no answer.

 

i guess i can only continue to pick away at things at my own pace, and hopefully some of you guys here dont mind taking the time to chat about things i find current science just doesnt hold up to, maybe it does but im just not understanding them.

 

cheers anyhoo guys, i appreciate you taking the time to have a look at it.

 

regards

scott

[baric]

cheers anyhoo guys, i appreciate you taking the time to have a look at it.

 

 

I want to make clear that I do not claim to be an expert in physics, but I do try to keep up with it. The paper looks suspect to me for the reasons I listed, but I think a more legitimate refutation should come from someone with a stronger background in the subject.

[0.0001 mass]

I want to make clear that I do not claim to be an expert in physics, but I do try to keep up with it. The paper looks suspect to me for the reasons I listed, but I think a more legitimate refutation should come from someone with a stronger background in the subject.

 

no worries, im pretty certain you are more clued up with current matters than i am. I guess i found the content sort of romantic to a point if you see where im comming from, the fact that this man is saying he has possebley got proof of the oneness (i dont like this term but it will do) the fact he talks about ocilating particles, "where and who are you when you are not here?" did you watch that part of the vid, Baric? This is the sort of thing that could make some poor souls head implode lol

 

is space more energetic than matter? i would like to know if this is true, the man does ask some good questions though and has a point with the dimensions....did you guys really get taught that in school?

 

im going to have to watch it again this time with a note pad and write down my problems i have with it, once ive done that i will look into them, then i will send his firm an email and im wanting an answer this time lol

 

cheers

scott