@Lou

Quote:

Did they alse see the predicted effect of said particle? No they only measured an energy level, nothing is actually seen literally.

You asked what was discovered and I gave you some examples of observations that matched predictions. If you want to reject because they can't hug and kiss them then whatever.

Quote:

Nassim did all the math for you BrianK.

'The bible is true because it says is true' - is a religious idea on faith. Haramein claiming to be true and accepting this has just as much worth as faith. 'The bible is true because it describes X and X has been shown by extra biblical sources validate' - Multiple lines of diverse approaching converging on the same answer leads us to acceptance of a higher order. Haramein's claims create a mass that aren't in alignmnet with reality. Just as there are no blackholes at the center of the earth or the sun. It's not the Earth is wrong about it's own existence. It's Haramein is wrong.

Quote:

So let's follow the logic here

Again QGP is predicted by the Standard Model. Perhaps another model does too. We then need other sources to help us determine which is true. Such as does a proton function like a blackhole? Which it doesn't. Does it have the density of a blackhole? Not even close. Not only does the mass not align that which would be necessary to create this effect the energy doesn't either. How do we know that. LHC would actually be creating blackholes. The same sort of lack of energy showing lack of extra dimensions results in demonstrating it's not really a blackhole.

Quote:

It's a more modern revision of it that accepts vacuum energy.

I'm glad you acknowledge the system you wish to discard actually did the job.

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Feb-2012 at 06:22 PM.

@Lou

Here's another one for you. No wonder NASA has conspired to keep us away from the darkside. Clearly it's Xenu's Spaceplane ditched in a crater. It's plain as day (pun intended).

@Lou

A few times I've talked about Dark Energy as not a necessary or mandatory condition for gravity. Here's one other postulate Repulsive Gravity

@Lou

Quote:

Yes, I do apologize for smashing your belief system by posting an actual formula!

Just as there is a difference between astrology and astronomy, there is a similar difference between numerology of the type you posted and mathematics.

Quote:

An event horizon is not actually part of the mass of a black hole... Geez...

Learn to read "the schwartzchild radius of a mass matching that measured for a proton is far below the Planck length" Add to that the fact that there is a lower mass limit below which black holes evaporate immediately. Or is Hawking radiation your explanation of why things get lost?

Quote:

You read bob-a-thon's post but failed to process Nassim's response to it where every point is answered. Good job...not!

You mean the vitriolic ad hominem launched at him that totally failed to even address, let alone answer a single point? I actually read the "response" before reading the article that it attacked.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Did they alse see the predicted effect of said particle? No they only measured an energy level, nothing is actually seen literally. You asked what was discovered and I gave you some examples of observations that matched predictions. If you want to reject because they can't hug and kiss them then whatever.

LOL that has been why you reject everything I have posted, so "whatever" back at you.

Quote:

Quote: Nassim did all the math for you BrianK. 'The bible is true because it says is true' - is a religious idea on faith. Haramein claiming to be true and accepting this has just as much worth as faith. 'The bible is true because it describes X and X has been shown by extra biblical sources validate' - Multiple lines of diverse approaching converging on the same answer leads us to acceptance of a higher order. Haramein's claims create a mass that aren't in alignmnet with reality. Just as there are no blackholes at the center of the earth or the sun. It's not the Earth is wrong about it's own existence. It's Haramein is wrong.

It's amusing to see you in vehement denial here and then reading your subsequent post about repulsive gravity...

Quote:

Quote: So let's follow the logic here Again QGP is predicted by the Standard Model. Perhaps another model does too. We then need other sources to help us determine which is true. Such as does a proton function like a blackhole? Which it doesn't. Does it have the density of a blackhole? Not even close. Not only does the mass not align that which would be necessary to create this effect the energy doesn't either. How do we know that. LHC would actually be creating blackholes. The same sort of lack of energy showing lack of extra dimensions results in demonstrating it's not really a blackhole.

It only doesn't "align" in your standard model view. Its obvious that more modern revisions do make it so or else Mr. Haramein wouldn't have won an award. But I guess BrianK and Nimrod are smarter than those scientists in Belgium.

Quote:

Quote: It's a more modern revision of it that accepts vacuum energy. I'm glad you acknowledge the system you wish to discard actually did the job.

The "system" is a paradigm. Paradigms are not reality...but help you cope with it. Eventually, a better one comes along.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou A few times I've talked about Dark Energy as not a necessary or mandatory condition for gravity. Here's one other postulate Repulsive Gravity

This is totally amusing to me that you would post a link supporting science actually trying to make sense of the quantum vacuum! And science that throws out "dark energy" at that - despite your prior postings that relativity + dark matter + dark energy explains everything.

I really wish you'd make up your mind on what you believe in rather than just post for the sake of attempting to debunk whatever I post...

@Lou

Quote:

It's amusing to see you in vehement denial here and then reading your subsequent post about repulsive gravity...

Perhaps you need to read all what I write to you as responses. I've clearly said Gravity's source is unsettled science so we must continue the work. And as for Repulsive Gravity it's one other postulate that incorporates a Higgs Mechanism without the necessity of a Higgs Particle.

Quote:

It only doesn't "align" in your standard model view. Its obvious that more modern revisions do make it so

I think this speaks more to your lack of understanding of scientific process. Science is not the immutable religion your claims try to make it be.

Quote:

your prior postings that relativity + dark matter + dark energy explains everything.

That'd be your misreading moreso than anything else. What I've said repeatedly is the model we have at present is the best explaination for the evidence we have at present. Which means science should continue to research and develop it's understanding. At no time did I say I supported or not Repulsive Gravity nor did I say if it was true or not.. I showed you one postulate, yet unproven so we can't say true or not. I'll let you guess what the next steps are but hit it starts with "E".

The problem here is you believe that the lack of Higgs means we must discard the Standard Model. Yet you do not appear to realize the Standard Model without a Higgs Particle can still exist. The Higgs Particle is not a necessary condition of the Standard Model. It's one of several postulates on how the Higgs Mechanism may work. Let the research and understanding continue.

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Feb-2012 at 03:19 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Yes, I do apologize for smashing your belief system by posting an actual formula! Just as there is a difference between astrology and astronomy, there is a similar difference between numerology of the type you posted and mathematics. Quote: An event horizon is not actually part of the mass of a black hole... Geez... Learn to read "the schwartzchild radius of a mass matching that measured for a proton is far below the Planck length" Add to that the fact that there is a lower mass limit below which black holes evaporate immediately. Or is Hawking radiation your explanation of why things get lost? Quote: You read bob-a-thon's post but failed to process Nassim's response to it where every point is answered. Good job...not! You mean the vitriolic ad hominem launched at him that totally failed to even address, let alone answer a single point? I actually read the "response" before reading the article that it attacked.

Perhaps you can answer a question that BrianK likes to gloss over...

If two protons have such "tiny masses" and they are smashed together thereby breaking them up into smaller bits of less mass/density, how is is that QGP was observed?

NAssim's theory is the collision caused the black holes to disperse somewhat down to QGP, your theory is 'black magic'.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: It's amusing to see you in vehement denial here and then reading your subsequent post about repulsive gravity... Perhaps you need to read all what I write to you as responses. I've clearly said Gravity's source is unsettled science so we must continue the work. And as for Repulsive Gravity it's one other postulate that incorporates a Higgs Mechanism without the necessity of a Higgs Particle. Quote: It only doesn't "align" in your standard model view. Its obvious that more modern revisions do make it so I think this speaks more to your lack of understanding of scientific process. Science is not the immutable religion your claims try to make it be. Quote: your prior postings that relativity + dark matter + dark energy explains everything. That'd be your misreading moreso than anything else. What I've said repeatedly is the model we have at present is the best explaination for the evidence we have at present. Which means science should continue to research and develop it's understanding. At no time did I say I supported or not Repulsive Gravity nor did I say if it was true or not.. I showed you one postulate, yet unproven so we can't say true or not. I'll let you guess what the next steps are but hit it starts with "E". The problem here is you believe that the lack of Higgs means we must discard the Standard Model. Yet you do not appear to realize the Standard Model without a Higgs Particle can still exist. The Higgs Particle is not a necessary condition of the Standard Model. It's one of several postulates on how the Higgs Mechanism may work. Let the research and understanding continue.

Perhaps you should dig thru the threads and read what you actually write where you keep stating "it's the best theory we have" and defend it to the death.

I have been trying to introduce you to newer science that surpasses "the best theory you accept".

What makes this more acceptable to you than things I've posted? Oh Oh Oh! I know! You posted it, not me! That must be it!

@Lou

Quote:

Perhaps you should dig thru the threads and read what you actually write where you keep stating "it's the best theory we have" and defend it to the death.

VS
Quote:

prior postings that relativity + dark matter + dark energy explains everything.

These two statements are in no way equivalent. (Seems you like being Mr. Twist )

My point is much closer to the first point here and no where near the second. As for 'defend to death'. It is a very important part of the process in understanding what is a postulate, what is evidence, and what is a Scientific Theory. When junk like claims of black holes at the middle of the arth are real, when in no way does reality comply with this claim, then there are even larger serious problems in that particular alternative claim.

Quote:

I have been trying to introduce you to newer science that surpasses "the best theory you accept".

Err sorta. Your approach has been to declare truth without the evidence and with some loosely related and clearly incomplete postulates. Additionally, what you've been shoving isn't just wrong it's worse than wrong. Because supposedly nothing can disprove you. A scientific postulate needs falsibility. When you allow none then you simply don't have a scientific postulate you have something much worse.

Quote:

What makes this more acceptable to you than things I've posted?

Good humor but if you seriously don't know by now there's really no helping you. It's that the preponderance of Experimentation, Evidence, and Predictability has yet to be on your side.

Earlier we saw Newton wrong as Vulcan didn't exist and without it Mercury would have spun a firely death into the sun. Later we see Einsteinian Gravity saves Mercury and aligns more closer to reality on the Macro. There certainly are micro issues which need to be worked out. And they may, or may not, impact the Macro. But, really a blackhole in the middle of the sun provides worse predictability as it fails to align with observerational reality. Simply put there is no blackhole in the middle of the sun.

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Feb-2012 at 04:41 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 06-Feb-2012 at 04:36 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Perhaps you should dig thru the threads and read what you actually write where you keep stating "it's the best theory we have" and defend it to the death. VS Quote: prior postings that relativity + dark matter + dark energy explains everything. These two statements are in no way equivalent. (Seems you like being Mr. Twist ) My point is much closer to the first point here and no where near the second. As for 'defend to death'. It is a very important part of the process in understanding what is a postulate, what is evidence, and what is a Scientific Theory. When junk like claims of black holes at the middle of the arth are real, when in no way does reality comply with this claim, then there are even larger serious problems in that particular alternative claim. Quote: I have been trying to introduce you to newer science that surpasses "the best theory you accept". Err sorta. Your approach has been to declare truth without the evidence and with some loosely related and clearly incomplete postulates. Additionally, what you've been shoving isn't just wrong it's worse than wrong. Because supposedly nothing can disprove you. A scientific postulate needs falsibility. When you allow none then you simply don't have a scientific postulate you have something much worse. Quote: What makes this more acceptable to you than things I've posted? Good humor but if you seriously don't know by now there's really no helping you. It's that the preponderance of Experimentation, Evidence, and Predictability has yet to be on your side. Earlier we saw Newton wrong as Vulcan didn't exist and without it Mercury would have spun a firely death into the sun. Later we see Einsteinian Gravity saves Mercury and aligns more closer to reality on the Macro. There certainly are micro issues which need to be worked out. And they may, or may not, impact the Macro. But, really a blackhole in the middle of the sun provides worse predictability as it fails to align with observerational reality. Simply put there is no blackhole in the middle of the sun.

Actually, I think what's really happening here is that the writing is on the wall for what you believed in at the start of this thread series. Now you try to look like the presenter of "newer and better" science.

Simply put, unless you are in the middle of the Sun taking measurements, you cannot say "there is no blackhole in the middle of the sun". I'm personally not saying there is, I'm just saying you can't say that there isn't. Your approach here is to declare truth based on old incomplete 'standard' models of what you believe the universe to be.

@Lou

Quote:

Actually, I think what's really happening here is that the writing is on the wall for what you believed in at the start of this thread series. Now you try to look like the presenter of "newer and better" science

Again I believe nothing. There's nothing new here. I've always demanded a skeptical fact checking system look at our postulates and evidence.

Quote:

say "there is no blackhole in the middle of the sun". I'm personally not saying there is, I'm just saying you can't say that there isn't

If you don't know if there is or isn't a blackhole at the center of the sun or the earth you cannot fairly conclude that Haramein's postulates are true from the evidence. Though I'd note I've been telling this to you and you seem to simply illustrate again and again that you fail to have the evidence to make such acceptance of truth. Demonstrating further of your inflexibility built upon faith.

As for if there's a blackhole in the sun or the earth -- Your next step is to understand properties of matter, of blackholes and compare measureable values to see if there are in alignment. Current observational evidence says they are not. And it says Haramein's values are trillons of times higher than reality proving a big problem of mass for Haramein. Again which Haramein himself knows as he stated he'll fix this at some point in some future paper. Another demonstration of your faith is that you've not read an unwritten paper to fix the flaws known to the author and still push out there that an unwritten postulate is fact.

Again the problem here isn't that you're wrong it's that you're worse than wrong as we have no postulate, no evidence but are selling this as truth. Lack of falsibility means your view on Haramein is unscientific, again worse than wrong aka snake-oil.

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Feb-2012 at 02:24 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Actually, I think what's really happening here is that the writing is on the wall for what you believed in at the start of this thread series. Now you try to look like the presenter of "newer and better" science Again I believe nothing. There's nothing new here. I've always demanded a skeptical fact checking system look at our postulates and evidence. Quote: say "there is no blackhole in the middle of the sun". I'm personally not saying there is, I'm just saying you can't say that there isn't If you don't know if there is or isn't a blackhole at the center of the sun or the earth you cannot fairly conclude that Haramein's postulates are true from the evidence. Though I'd note I've been telling this to you and you seem to simply illustrate again and again that you fail to have the evidence to make such acceptance of truth. Demonstrating further of your inflexibility built upon faith. As for if there's a blackhole in the sun or the earth -- Your next step is to understand properties of matter, of blackholes and compare measureable values to see if there are in alignment. Current observational evidence says they are not. And it says Haramein's values are trillons of times higher than reality proving a big problem of mass for Haramein. Again which Haramein himself knows as he stated he'll fix this at some point in some future paper. Another demonstration of your faith is that you've not read an unwritten paper to fix the flaws known to the author and still push out there that an unwritten postulate is fact. Again the problem here isn't that you're wrong it's that you're worse than wrong as we have no postulate, no evidence but are selling this as truth. Lack of falsibility means your view on Haramein is unscientific, again worse than wrong aka snake-oil.

Haramein's math is correct per the parameters he specified with regards to vacuum energy. The difference is you are fixated on the standard model which ignores this energy and defines a normalized basic unit of mass. Plain and simple, the standard model might have been good enough to model with 60 years ago...it's not good enough today. Get over it.

Quote:

Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck Constant requires it to have a much larger value of 10^113 Joules per cubic meter.

@Lou

Quote:

Haramein's math is correct per the parameters he specified with regards to vacuum energy.

Again. Mathematical correct is a great start. What we're talking about is application to reality. The observational properties of protons are inconsistent with a blackhole claim. (Which again Haramein knows as he said he'll answer this in a future paper. ) Just as the observational reality is that the sun and the earth are not blackholes. So again pretty math and out of alignment with reality. Just as the earth does not produce solar flares. And again pretty math and out of alignment with reality.

And we're seriously not talking the incremental difference between a 'normalized' mass. We're talking a trillion trillon fold inconsistency. If you got in your car did the math to drive from your house and NYC and landed Mars would you claim your problem is some 'normalized' math? Not in the least.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Haramein's math is correct per the parameters he specified with regards to vacuum energy. Again. Mathematical correct is a great start. What we're talking about is application to reality. The observational properties of protons are inconsistent with a blackhole claim. (Which again Haramein knows as he said he'll answer this in a future paper. ) Just as the observational reality is that the sun and the earth are not blackholes. So again pretty math and out of alignment with reality. Just as the earth does not produce solar flares. And again pretty math and out of alignment with reality.

He cited volcanic eruptions as possibly being similar to flares... Probably not too different from earthquakes...
Do you not find it odd that in alot of cases where earthquakes occur (or heavy sun spot/ CME activity affecting the earth) you find tragedies in nature such as beached whales?
Animals such as whales and birds rely on the earth's magnetic field for navigation. Even when beached whales are "saved" they tend to re-beach themselves shortly thereafter...

Quote:

And we're seriously not talking the incremental difference between a 'normalized' mass. We're talking a trillion trillon fold inconsistency. If you got in your car did the math to drive from your house and NYC and landed Mars would you claim your problem is some 'normalized' math? Not in the least.

I find normallizing 10^113 down to practically nothing quite disturbing. Your analogy isn't a good one. He charted the energy density of many known objects in the universe and the schwartzchild proton is in line where as the standard model proton is not. Protons are not known to emit light. To me, observational evidence agrees with Haramein and blind religion of the standard model does not. Coroborating evidence is the QGP observed when smashing 2 protons together. As even he put it, the colliders only serve to prove him correct meanwhile, Higgs is a no-show...

So other than your religious beliefs in the standard model, what actual evidence do you have that contradicts him?

@Lou

Quote:

He charted the energy density of many known objects in the universe and the schwartzchild proton is in line where as the standard model proton is not.

What this means is that his so called maths does not tally with what actually happens in the real world, so either the universe is wrong, and needs to be re-booted, or Harameins "maths" is numerology.

Quote:

meanwhile, Higgs is a no-show...

Strange that you accept unevidenced postulates as fact while rejecting 95%+ probability outcomes as a no-show. But of course you do not believe in mathematical probability so it doesn't actually exist.

Quote:

So other than your religious beliefs in the standard model, what actual evidence do you have that contradicts him?

The fact that his model does not match the world as it can be measured. According to his postulate a proton has a mass of hundreds of tonsA spoonful of graphite dust consists of millions of granules, yet has less mass than one "Scwartzchild proton" and would therefore be a subatomic particle according to Harameins "maths"

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

He cited volcanic eruptions as possibly being similar to flares.

Watching his videos I'd disagree with this assessment. Instead I'd contend he concludes eruptions are 'earth's solar flares'.

Quote:

Do you not find it odd that in alot of cases where earthquakes occur

I find any relationship of causality as an unanswered postulate.

Here's a couple recent examples that show relationship between these events don't even appear to have correlation. Nearly 200 Dolphins have been stranded since the first of the year in the Mass. area. No major earthquakes appear there. And while recently a large 6.8 earthquake hit the Philippines, no mass strandings have been reported.

Quote:

To me, observational evidence agrees with Haramein ... what actual evidence do you have that contradicts him

Haramein's mass of the proton is millions of metric tons. Clearly not true. Smashing protons takes energy amounts significantly smaller than what would be necessary using Haramein's mass. Nor does the increased density make blackholes. And don't forget Haramein himself admitted mass out of alignments are a problem for his existing papers. This is a future paper which you seemingly accept as true without it's existence. You have lots of faith in the Haramein Savior of EM_is_God.

Sun - insufficent density. Exploration reflects not absorbs spectra. Incorrect shape (no accretion disc or polish donut). Not a black hole.

Earth - insufficent density. Exploration reflects not absorbs spectra. Exploration with sesmic waves travel through the planet, not absorbed. Incorrect shape (no accretion disc or polish donut). Not a black hole.

Volcanoes are very well understood and are not produced for the same reason sunflares are produced. The sun is plasma and not comprised of solid techtonic plates. Not the same causes. The earth not being a sun, also adds to Volcanoes are not sunflares.

STEREO is now monitoring the sun 24x7x365 and at 360 degrees for the first time ever. Never recorded any earth sized alien ships using the sun for a supergalatic highway. Sun is not a stargate.

Of course the one excuse we hear is the entirity of science is built on the conspiracy to hide the aliens and these are all lies.

And now I see why you hate Wikipedia Oh and quite a bit of evidence that contradicts many of his claims..

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Feb-2012 at 11:59 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 07-Feb-2012 at 11:27 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 07-Feb-2012 at 09:02 PM.

@BrianK & Nimrod,

This is where I really start to laugh at you guys...

Remember good old Frank Zidnarsic? Studying cold fusion and anti-gravity?
Let's recap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4I5mgBKPZY

Remember Nimrod's "how did he get that number?"
Well, low and behold:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/a-crushing-magnetic-field-combined-with-a-laser-may-make-fusion-more-efficient.ars

I just want to pull out a quote from this article:
Quote:

1 million meters per second

Gee, does that sound familiar?

The velocity of the transitional quantum state.

OWNED!

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: He charted the energy density of many known objects in the universe and the schwartzchild proton is in line where as the standard model proton is not. What this means is that his so called maths does not tally with what actually happens in the real world, so either the universe is wrong, and needs to be re-booted, or Harameins "maths" is numerology.

This coming from the same man who doubted Frank Zidnarsic...

Quote:

Quote: meanwhile, Higgs is a no-show... Strange that you accept unevidenced postulates as fact while rejecting 95%+ probability outcomes as a no-show. But of course you do not believe in mathematical probability so it doesn't actually exist.

So 95% probability and what, thousands? of collisions and still nothing... Epic fail!

Quote:

Quote: So other than your religious beliefs in the standard model, what actual evidence do you have that contradicts him? The fact that his model does not match the world as it can be measured. According to his postulate a proton has a mass of hundreds of tonsA spoonful of graphite dust consists of millions of granules, yet has less mass than one "Scwartzchild proton" and would therefore be a subatomic particle according to Harameins "maths"

Keep on preaching...

@Lou

Quote:

I just want to pull out a quote from this article: 1 million meters per second

This would be the minimum speed where nuclei would need to be moving. Further reading of the Ars article indicate that at present Fusion needs about a factor of 50 times more power than produced. It was shown in a computer tha this is possible with a specifically set laser. It was also noted that no such laser exists to date.

What we see here is an unsurprising Lou claim that a postulate is evidence. I think if you read the last line of the paper you'd see it's unproven and unevidenced -- "What this really calls for, of course, is a huge experiment "

A postulate isn't supported by a postulate. A question doesn't support a question. Again EVIDENCE?! I'll be waiting.

(NOTE on the video. Having a book on Free Energy from the Zero Point seems to speak to how the poster doesn't get the idea that no available for external use energy is not limitless power.)