Nassim Haramein
Bruce Gould
More dribs and drabs of thoughts:
Harameins personal characteristics have nothing to do with the correctness of his ideas – but they DO relate to his (and our) predicament. I think he’s genuinely naïve about some elementary things – he really doesn’t grasp why hiring people and calling them “emissaries” distances himself from the physics community.
In my opinion he has trouble communicating, and it goes way beyond his grasp of English. I now understand why he thinks there’s a problem in physics about “spin” – he could have done a much better job of explaining this. But I still think it’s a nonexistent problem. One of his enthusiasts suggested I look at Wikipedia in “unsolved physics problems” to see a list of all the problems his theory solves. I note that spin is not among them!
Haramein admitted that his theory explains existing problems in physics but doesn’t make new predictions. This is problematical – theories that aren’t directly falsifiable are weaker than those that are. I suspect – but I can’t prove or rigorously justify this – that he’s doing some selection of data so the curves will come out nicely.
Personally, I think he should take the next $100,000 that he gets from his DVD’s and just offer it to Freeman Dyson or some other physicist known for integrity to evaluate his work.
Bruce Gould
I have come to the conclusion that Haramein doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and the entire phenomena surrounding him is related to people’s desire to believe. This is a gigantic, massive snow job.
Let’s go back to this whole “spin” thing. This is from Haramein paper “What Is The Origin of Spin”?
“Ask the question ‘what is the origin of the rotation or spin of all objects from galaxies, suns and planets to atoms and subatomic particles?’ ”
(if you know any high school physics you should read this paper – it’s amusing. He cites himself as the author of another paper, failing to mention that he is in fact a co-author. This is considered a breach of ethics in academic circles, and quite rightly so in my opinion)
As many elementary texts on mechanics explain – I recommend “Newtonian Mechanics” by A.P. French – “spin” is a word that’s used in many different contexts, but in fact it is a different phenomena in mechanics than it is in particle physics or other areas. That is to say, the concept of “spin” as it refers to subatomic particles is not the same as “spin” as it refers to the earth. From a Scientific American forum: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-exactly-is-the-spin :
"When certain elementary particles move through a magnetic field, they are deflected in a manner that suggests they have the properties of little magnets. In the classical world, a charged, spinning object has magnetic properties that are very much like those exhibited by these elementary particles. Physicists love analogies, so they described the elementary particles too in terms of their 'spin.'
"Unfortunately, the analogy breaks down, and we have come to realize that it is misleading to conjure up an image of the electron as a small spinning object. Instead we have learned simply to accept the observed fact that the electron is deflected by magnetic fields. If one insists on the image of a spinning object, then real paradoxes arise; unlike a tossed softball, for instance, the spin of an electron never changes, and it has only two possible orientations. In addition, the very notion that electrons and protons are solid 'objects' that can 'rotate' in space is itself difficult to sustain, given what we know about the rules of quantum mechanics. The term 'spin,' however, still remains."
In other words, Haramein is proposing a solution to a problem which doesn’t exist. The “origin of spin” is not a scientific problem.
I could go on about the physics for the still unconvinced – anyone interested?
matt atwood
I have come to the conclusion that Haramein doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and the entire phenomena surrounding him is related to people’s desire to believe. This is a gigantic, massive snow job.
I don't have any particular desire to believe in his theories... i just happen to believe that they make more sense to me than all the other shit I've studied - both on a mathematical/physical level as well as intuitive.
Let’s go back to this whole “spin” thing. This is from Haramein paper “What Is The Origin of Spin”?
(if you know any high school physics you should read this paper – it’s amusing. He cites himself as the author of another paper, failing to mention that he is in fact a co-author. This is considered a breach of ethics in academic circles, and quite rightly so in my opinion)
Bruce, to be fair, that is a "layman's" paper as referenced on his website, it specifically does not purport to be a scientific paper. That paper was not written for the scientist, nor was it to be published anywhere but his website. As you'll note - it was copyrighted by himself.
Try reading "The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein's Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory" (PDF), by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.
"Unfortunately, the analogy breaks down, and we have come to realize that it is misleading to conjure up an image of the electron as a small spinning object. Instead we have learned simply to accept the observed fact that the electron is deflected by magnetic fields. If one insists on the image of a spinning object, then real paradoxes arise; unlike a tossed softball, for instance, the spin of an electron never changes, and it has only two possible orientations. In addition, the very notion that electrons and protons are solid 'objects' that can 'rotate' in space is itself difficult to sustain, given what we know about the rules of quantum mechanics. The term 'spin,' however, still remains."
In other words, Haramein is proposing a solution to a problem which doesn’t exist. The “origin of spin” is not a scientific problem.
But that's not my point here. My point here is that the question about spin is not so much on a quantized level, but on a larger level. Please do ask yourself what is the source of spin for planets and interstellar objects, etc. Conserved kinetic energy from the big bang? Seriously? There's enough friction in the universe that time should be slowing down significantly and the rotational velocity of everything we witness should be zero. How the hell is everything out there still spinning?
I could go on about the physics for the still unconvinced – anyone interested?
Absolutley. Completely unconvinced.
Spiral Syzygy
start seeing some referenced papers. Who's up to start citing?
Spiral
Kathleen Ellis
> But that's not my point here. My point here is that the question about spin
> is not so much on a quantized level, but on a larger level. Please do ask
> yourself what is the source of spin for planets and interstellar objects,
> etc. Conserved kinetic energy from the big bang? Seriously? There's
> enough friction in the universe that time should be slowing down
> significantly and the rotational velocity of everything we witness should be
> zero. How the hell is everything out there still spinning?
I was under the impression that there's no friction in the vacuum of
space.
--
--
"Utopia is a matter of innermost urgency."
- Slavoj Zizek
"Life is short and truth works far and long; let us speak the truth."
- Arthur Schopenhauer
Kathleen Ellis
>> (if you know any high school physics you should read this paper – it’s
>> amusing. He cites himself as the author of another paper, failing to mention
>> that he is in fact a co-author. This is considered a breach of ethics in
>> academic circles, and quite rightly so in my opinion)
>>
>
> Bruce, to be fair, that is a "layman's" paper as referenced on his website,
> it specifically does not purport to be a scientific paper. That paper was
> not written for the scientist, nor was it to be published anywhere but his
> website. As you'll note - it was copyrighted by himself.
OK, even if it's not supposed to be a scientific paper Bruce is citing, it
still would be nice to have some reference outside the resonance project
echo chamber to verify any of this. I really don't have a lot of physics
under my belt, but I can't just fall into line behind every idea that
comes along without some kind of external verification. (If I did that I'd
be a cloistered nun by now and wouldn't know any of you wonderful people.)
This issue of external validity keeps coming up, Matt. I wish it would be
addressed by someone.
Also, on an intuitive level and also on a common sense level, something
seems kind of wrong with writing papers on physics and then copyrighting
them so you can protect your financial interests.
-K
Spiral Syzygy
velocity and it flies past a significant gravity well. The change in
direction from the influence of the well will cause a curved path in
the bit of matter as it the gravity well pulls on it. If you have a
forward momentum from expansion and a pull from anywhere perpendicular
to that path, you have a curved path and if the bit is captured, you
have a spin around a gravity well. Not really rocket science. Kinda
like a rock on string, actually. This is not a deeply troubling aspect
of physics by any means.
John Stoner
large spinning objects. Actually, it would be very difficult
(vanishingly improbable) to get planets, or stars, or large celestial
objects of any kind, that didn't spin.
If there was an absence of spin, that would be deeply troubling. But
its presence is explained well by Newtonian mechanics, as I understand
them, and not negated by Einstein's theories, as I understand them.
Alex Gordon-Brander
Alex
Spiral Syzygy
unifier, suggests a big bounce as apposed to a big bang. What that
means for us is really unclear. I don't think we have to have these
answers to declare another to be methodically in error.
Spiral
matt atwood
Kathleen, if you read his scientific papers, there are significant references. I've copied the reference section below from the paper I mentioned to Bruce earlier today. The issue is not whether he cites scientific papers or writes scientifically significant work (else we wouldn't be having this conversation)... the question is not even about other people that cite his work. The question is whether 1) it can be experimentally proven or disproven, and 2) so what? does it have any impact on technology or the world?
I agree with you... nobody should just be going around believing anything everyone is saying. All scientists need be skeptics by definition. I'm not saying anybody should just believe what he's saying. I'm suggesting people study it, read his papers and attempt to understand what he's talking about in a reasoned and scientific manner. I'm sorry, but people decrying him as being some kind of a liar and wingnut without taking the time and effort to come up with grounded and reasonable reasons as to why he is wrong holds no credibility with me. I like this discussion because it brings up facts. I want to talk about facts. Not whether other scientists believe what he is saying.
Take cold fusion for example. Fishmann and Pons purporetedly had good experimental results that were duplicated in other labs... however, as the story goes (or at least one story goes) several harvard and mit scientists working for the doe and dod called bullshit for political reasons and then the scientific community fell into line, calling Fishmann and Pons liars and breaking their careers. Today, as it turns out, there's many well-funded labs in the world attempting to reproduce their experiments, reportedly with results. (I happen to know someone at Stanford working on this today. I was in the "that's bullshit" category until I met this postdoc). Nobody knows whether it'll produce anything, but many smart people are optomistic and doing research to try to figure it out. The bottom line is that science and politics are inextricably interrelated and we should just consider the facts, look at the data, look at the world and draw our own conclusions.
Bruce, here is the link that Arash promised you from Sunday night: http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Tajmar_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
Matt
REFERENCES
1. C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation, (Freedman and Co. 1973), pp.142, 165.
2. Elie Cartan-Albert Einstein, Letters on Absolute Parallelism 1929-1932, Edited by Robert Debever, (Princeton
University Press 1979).
3. N. Haramein, “Scaling Law for Organized Matter in the Universe,” Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. AB006 (2001).
4. N. Haramein, “Fundamental Dynamics of Black Hole Physics,” Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. Y6.010 (2002).
5. E.A. Rauscher, “Closed Cosmological Solutions to Einstien’s Field Equations,” Let. Nuovo Cimento 3, 661
(1972).
6. E.A. Rauscher, “Speculations on a Schwarzschild Universe,” UCB/LBNL, LBL-4353 (1975).
7. E.A. Rauscher and N. Haramein, “Cosmogenesis, Current Cosmology and the Evolution of its Physical
Parameters,” in progress.
8. E.A. Rauscher, “A Unifying Theory of Fundamental Processes,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report
(UCRL-20808 June 1971) and Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 13, 1643 (1968).
9. H. Weyl, Classical Groups: Their Invariants and Representation, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
1996).
10. R. Hammond, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1906 (1982).
11. R. Hammond, Gen Rel. and Grav. 20, 813 (1988).
12. W. de Sitter, The Astronomical Aspects of the Theory of Relativity, (University of California Press 1933).
13. J.L. Synge, Relativity: The General Theory, (North – Holland, Amsterdam 1960).
14. C. Fronsdel, “Completion and Embedding of the Schwarzschild Solution,” Phys. Rev. 116, 778 (1959).
15. M.D. Kruskal, “Maximal Extension of Schwarzschild Metric,” Phys. Rev. 119, 1743 (1960).
16. G. Szekeres, “On the Singularities of a Riemannian Manifold,” Pub. Math. Debrecen , 7, 285 (1960).
17. N. Haramein and E.A. Rauscher, “A Consideration of Torsion and Coriolis Effects in Einstein’s Field
Equations,” Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. S10.016 (2003).
18. Robert G. Abraham et al., “The Gemini Deep Deep Survey.I. Introduction to the Survey,” Catalogs, and
Composite Spectra, AJ. 127, 2455.
19. R.W. Lindquist and J.A. Wheeler, “Dynamics of a Lattice Universe by the Schwarzschild-Cell Method,” Rev.
of Mod. Phys., 29, 432 (1957).
20. S.P. Sirag, International Journal of Theoretical Phys. 22, 1067 (1983).
21. S.P. Sirag, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 27, 31 (1982).
22. S.P. Sirag, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 34, 1 (1989).
23. H.S.M. Coxeter, Regular Polytopes, (Macmillian, New York 1963), 3rd Ed. (Dover, New York 1973).
24. H. Georgi and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 438 (1974).
25. R. Geroch, A. Held and R. Penrose, J. Math. Phys. 14, 874 (1973).
26. R. Penrose, “The Geometry of the Universe,” in Mathematics Today, ed. L.A. Steen, (Springer-Verlag 1978).
27. Th. Kaluza, Sitz. Berlin Press, Akad. Wiss. 966 (1921).
28. O. Klein, Z. Phys. 37, 895 (1926).
29. C. Ramon and E.A. Rauscher, “Superluminal Transformations in Complex Minkowski Spaces,” Found. of
Phys. 10, 661 (1980).
30. E.A. Rauscher, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 23, 84 (1978).
31. N. Haramein, “The Role of theAm. Phys. Soc. N17.006 (2002).
Alex Gordon-Brander
A big bounce just pushes the causal question back and presupposes an entire pre-bounce universe... :)
A
Spiral Syzygy
out for this shit. Anyone ask a duck to explain quacking? I enjoy the
mystery. I don't need certainty, but I think the bigger issue here is
that some people feel a strong need to discredit Nassim because they
see him and his questionable practices as a threat to the trust we
need to maintain in our scientific institutions. Not everyone can
perform every experiment themselves to see for themselves so we need
to have trust and that trust is earned by stringent application of
rigorous methods. To go off claiming you have a theory of everything
and calling it science when you are not following the methods of
science is harmful to science and to those who place their trust in
that institution to bring understanding of their world.
Lets not lose the bigger issue here. Whether Nassim is right or wrong
in his theories, he does not appear to follow the methodology of
science and that poses issues for many, including myself. He has
interesting ideas, many may pan out to be true. Many will be false,
but how can we know for sure if he doesn't play by the rules? He
appears to have set himself up in a place where he cannot be
discredited because his claims are not presented in a clear way that
would allow for them to be discredited. This really smart if you are
trying to make a buck instead of a significant contribution to
science, as one would surely consider a Grand Unified Theory to be.
I'm not going to make the claim that Nassim is doing this, it just
appears that way to many of us.
Just my $0.02
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Alex Gordon-Brander
matt atwood
I think your assumption is incorrect. I believe him to be doing credible science, whether or not the scientific peer review community is prepared to believe him.
What method(s) of science is he failing to follow?
No doubt, it's a hard pill to swallow. If he's correct, the implications are (literally) limitless.
I personally don't believe everything he says, nor do I disbelieve it. I don't know enough. I'm taking issue with people attacking him and not flaws in his work.
I like the conversation, though!
Spiral Syzygy
good stuff and no one has called anyone here any nasty names yet.
Spiral
Kathleen Ellis
> Kathleen, if you read his scientific papers, there are significant
> references. I've copied the reference section below from the paper I
> mentioned to Bruce earlier today. The issue is not whether he cites
> scientific papers or writes scientifically significant work (else we
> wouldn't be having this conversation)... the question is not even about
> other people that cite his work.
I have looked over his papers if not exactly read and understood them. I
have also seen his references sections - that part is fine. I wasn't
asking if he has researched other materials or if he has a bibliography
attached to his papers. I was looking for some citation from outside of
his own institute referencing his work. It is a question for me if not for
you, and I can't let it go and fall into line behind this guy until I get
a satisfactory answer.
I know there's corruption in the sciences and that's why I'm careful,
Matt.
-K
matt atwood
Bruce Gould
Matt, I think you’re missing an important point: there are, indeed, all kinds of unsolved problems concerning the spin of (say) electrons – what this means, why certain experimental results come out the way they do, unexplained phenomena,etc. And there are all kinds of unsolved problems concerning the spin of galaxies. But there are no scientific problems that concern themselves with both the spin of electrons and the spin of galaxies, because they are not the same phenomena – the same word was (more or less accidentally) used to describe these two different things. You know, the color of quarks is not a subject they study at the Art Institute. (and, I might add, the spin of hurricanes is an altogether different issue, although Haramein seems to think that kind of spin needs to be related to the spin of galaxies)
Haramein may be writing his paper for the layperson, but he clearly states that he believes all these spins are related. If he expresses himself so poorly, why should it be our job to untangle his garbled communications? There are all kinds of unsolved problems and paradoxes in physics –as you point out – but what’s the reason we believe Haramein has offered some kind of coherent solution?
Now for the question you (and Haramein) raise about the kind of spin we find in regular old mechanics: on the macroscopic level we see galaxies, planets, and stars spinning. The law of conservation of angular momentum states that the angular momentum of an isolated system remains constant: if an ice skater is spinning and draws her arms closer to her body, her rotation speeds up, but angular momentum is conserved. Haramein asks: if the original angular momentum of the universe was zero, then why do we see spinning galaxies? Doesn’t this violate the conservation of angular momentum? No, because if our galaxy is spinning counterclockwise (to be naïve about it!), Andromeda galaxy is spinning counterclockwise – total angular momentum is conserved. As to why an object would begin to spin in the first place: linear translational energy is converted to rotational energy. A rock traveling is a straight line hits another rock, one starts spinning in one direction, the other spins in the other direction, and total angular momentum is conserved.
The larger question here, in my opinion, is whether or not it’s healthy for a scientist to go to the public directly to generate support for ideas that are extremely subtle and complicated, and whether or not it’s healthy to map Haramein onto the David and Goliath story.
Bruce Gould
Spiral says:
“velocity and it flies past a significant gravity well. The change in
direction from the influence of the well will cause a curved path in
the bit of matter as it the gravity well pulls on it. If you have a
forward momentum from expansion and a pull from anywhere perpendicular
to that path, you have a curved path and if the bit is captured, you
have a spin around a gravity well. Not really rocket science. Kinda
like a rock on string, actually. This is not a deeply troubling aspect
of physics by any means.”
Yes! This is what I said SO much more succinctly when I pointed out that translational motion can be converted to rotational motion, without violating the law of conservation of angular momentum. J))))
Alex Gordon-Brander
Spiral says:
“velocity and it flies past a significant gravity well. The change in direction from the influence of the well will cause a curved path in the bit of matter as it the gravity well pulls on it. If you have a forward momentum from expansion and a pull from anywhere perpendicular to that path, you have a curved path and if the bit is captured, you have a spin around a gravity well. Not really rocket science...
Wait a minute - isn't that *exactly* rocket science???
;-)
A
Spiral Syzygy
Bruce Gould
Matt says:
“I'm sorry, but people decrying him as being some kind of a liar and wingnut without taking the time and effort to
come up with grounded and reasonable reasons as to why he is wrong holds no credibility with me.”
I think he’s a wingnut, I’ve spent a decent amount of time looking at his stuff, and I don’t think he’s intentionally lying to anyone or being deliberately evil: I think he’s disturbed. He’s 46 and he could have spent a few years in grad school, saving himself from his credibility problem and the general public from trying to unravel his theories.
I fault him for not having the smarts to hire a good science writer and hiring “emissaries” – something is wrong.
Haramein talks about Einstein as another genius out in the wilderness. But in fact Einstein completed his advanced degrees, got good grades, was in contact with the major scientists of his day right from the start, made falsifiable predictions, and his theories were accepted as soon as experimental evidence came in.
I cannot tell whether or not there’s some valuable idea or nugget of truth in his work – maybe there is. But should the general public really pay him any attention, or should they ignore him and let the process of peer review take its course?
Bruce Gould
I should say that I have great respect and affection for Matt and he knows more about a lot of the science stuff than I do.
I just think his judgement is a little clouded here!
J)
matt atwood
I find the linear relationship between the energy and radius of spinning objects from galaxies down to quarks to be quite compelling evidence that there *is* a relationship between the spin of these objects. When I first saw this I nearly fell off my seat and I got extremely excited. Not to mention that there is a phi-scale ratio between the objects. I mean, wow!
I've not heard Haramein ask the question you quoted, and I agree with your summation - you put energy into a system and you can get things to spin. I've heard him ask, "why is the angular momentum of a non-isolated system continue to spin at a constant rate? Doesn't *this* violate the conservation of angular momentum? Doesn't this point towards a yet-to-be-accounted-for external force?" Total angular momentum is conserved when shit bumps into eachother, however, you'd expect to see those object's spin decrease - particularly with friction and dynamo forces, unless there is an external force. Do you have any suggestions as to why the earth continues to spin at a constant rate - yet there's liquid magma rotating at a different velocity under the surface that leads to the magnetic field that allows life to exist on this planet? What's the external force?
I understand your larger question. If he turns out to be correct, then yes, I think it's crucial he goes out to get public support for his ideas and his work. But to me it's not Nassim vs. Goliath - it's simpley, hey, if this guy's right, then shit's about to get really interesting very quickly. And yes, I'd like for him to get MUCH MUCH more exposure to the public and scientific community because then there would be more people attempting to prove and disprove his work. I believe that's what he is trying to achieve.
What a great discussion! =)
Arash Amini
a note: in quantum mechanics, the spin operator S has units h-bar. guess what units h-bar has?
none other than kg.m^2/s.....which are the units of ANGULAR MOMENTUM.
our model does not see the spin of galaxies as the same as the spin of electrons, yet the observable state has the same units and behaves in much the same manner....
COULD OUR MODEL BE WRONG?
math is great;)
matt atwood
I'm going to defend myself for a moment. I don't believe my judgement is clouded here. I've never said that I believe Nassim's theories are correct. I've said that I think they're extremely interesting, that he brings up some excellent points, shows good evidence, and that we should seriously consider it. I am passing zero judgement. I am a skeptic through and through. I am actively seeking explanation for phonemonea that is yet to be explained, and explanation for why or why not Nassim's theories are valid.
I'm interested in data and observations, not people's feelings about how someone conducts themselves or chooses to dissemenate their ideas. And for the
I consider Nassim a friend, and I thoroughly enjoy his company. That certainly doesn't mean that I hold his to any less of a scientific standard as a result.
His most recent paper, that points towards a relationship between the scale and spin of protons and galaxies, was published in a peer-reviewed journal that happens to be the math journal of the Belgium mathematical society! If that's not a reason to begin to pay attention to him, what else do you need?
The guy is quite obviously putting himself out there, doing what he can and welcoming scrutiny. I mean, shit... I don't have a Ph.D. - I dropped out of my Ph.D. program to try to legalize medical marijuana in Illinois. Yet, I'm now (at least partially) regarded as an expert on biofuels and environmentalism... because of the years I put in. Most Ph.D. experts in my field don't have Ph.D.s in areas that are related - they have advanced degrees in physics, epidiemology or math... not ecology, etc... My point is that what makes someone an expert is their work and understanding of the topic, not a degree.
And for the record, Einstein did exceptionally well in science and math, but failed other subjects, and did not get into the Federal Polytechnic University of his choosing as a result.
Kathleen Ellis
Funny you should ask - Matt brought up the point the other day that
science is often flawed, and it even sometimes happens that a corrupt core
group can exert their influence to suppress valuable findings.
I respectfully submit that it happens at least as often that a crackpot
comes along with a wacky theory that is very wrong, by pretty much any
measure. Scores of them have trolled Usenet since forever. There's a long
list of them (unmaintained, many broken links, but the names are
googleable) here: http://homepage.mac.com/sigfpe/Physics/pots.html
It happens often enough that Mathicist/Physicist extraordinaire John Baez
has developed The Crackpot Index.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
So Arash - you just hit #9. 10 points!
I'm not asserting that Haramein is a crackpot, but it's certainly an open
question for me.
> math is great;)
math is hard, let's go shopping!
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie#Controversies)
--
Arash Amini
ok, the thing is, that we are really discussing interpretations here. how is it that two people can watch the same presentation and reach such different conclusions?
yes, there are holes in his theory, but how will they ever get patched if no one helps?
maybe we should all back up. this passionate discussion is all over the place.
i would like to pose a new question to the group.
can we discuss solely his scaling law paper?
i would like to ask of you all, no matter how you feel about the paper, to cite both what you liked and what you didn't like.
flaws, strengths, etc.
let's try to focus our collective intellect on one topic and really burn through it.
what do you think?
Kathleen Ellis
:) Thanks Arash for not taking umbrage. I'm not sure what I could
contribute to an analysis of this paper but I'll give it a shot.
http://theresonanceproject.org/research.html - the second one listed.
Careful, everyone, not to fall into the animated double-torus!
-K
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, Arash Amini wrote:
> growth of all involved. so i just want to thank everyone who is
> participating.
> ok, the thing is, that we are really discussing interpretations here. how is
> it that two people can watch the same presentation and reach such different
> conclusions?
> yes, there are holes in his theory, but how will they ever get patched if no
> one helps?
>
> maybe we should all back up. this passionate discussion is all over the
> place.
> i would like to pose a new question to the group.
> cite both what you liked and what you didn't like.
> flaws, strengths, etc.
> let's try to focus our collective intellect on one topic and really burn
> through it.
> what do you think?
>
> >
>
Bruce Gould
I propose a national “Send Nassim To School!” campaign. For a fraction of what his Resonance Project takes in we can get him a PHD and then he’s out of our hair! : )
Here are some more signs we’re dealing with a crackpot: Haramein mentioned in his talk that life contradicts the law of entropy: entropy says that disorder increases in the universe but life creates these highly ordered structures. No, no, no, a thousand times no: for half a century it’s been understood that the processes that create life use energy in such a way that the TOTAL amount of disorder in the universe increases – the payment for creating these highly ordered structures that are our bodies is create a lot of thermal poop that creates disorder elsewhere. This stuff is Scientific American 101, but no one in the audience raised their hand.
Matt mentioned Fleishmann and Pons, the guys who claimed to have evidence of cold fusion. Now it appears there might be *something* going on there, so this might appear to be an example of the system falsely ignoring the geniuses who came up with this…….but wait a minute, just wait a gosh-darned minute….when Fleishmann and Pons announced their results, lots of people took it seriously and tried to reproduce the experiment, and they couldn’t. And people *continued* over the years to experiment – there are over a thousand papers on cold fusion. So the process really worked exactly as it should – this is not an example of the authorities squelching the truth. To me it’s interesting how we want to see that story everywhere: I think it appeals to us because we see ourselves as the unsung heroes of our own little dramas, geniuses bucking the system. Yeah, yeah……..
Bruce Gould
Ok, Arash, can you explain his scaling law paper?
Jeffrey Benner
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/acs-fr031709.php
excerpt
'Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source
Note to journalists: Please report that this research was presented at a meeting of the American Chemical Society
 |
||||
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
SALT LAKE CITY, March 23, 2009 — Researchers are reporting compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the process once called "cold fusion" that may promise a new source of energy. One group of scientists, for instance, describes what it terms the first clear visual evidence that LENR devices can produce neutrons, subatomic particles that scientists view as tell-tale signs that nuclear reactions are occurring.
Kathleen Ellis
of the material in it is new to me, but I think I get the basic gist of it
- the idea is to establish a theory of the organization of matter,
all matter, from subatomic particles to galaxies, except he only really
talks about galaxies and cosmological structures in this one.
There's not a lot I can say about the first two sections now, or maybe
ever. I have no fluency in Einstein's field equations, or admittedly any
equations. I'll keep staring at em. The graph in figure 2b seems to be the
major 'gotcha' here, but I can't really say if it's got any juice to it
or not. Matt?
After that, I was reading through the other sections of the paper with
good googleable prose and came across a couple of things I find troubling
- there are multiple instances where he claims support for an assertion in
a footnoted reference, but the reference doesn't actually support what
he's saying. One example - in the introduction, he says that NASA has
observed that some galactic structures resemble a double-torus, and
provides three references. The first one, footnote 8, refers to these two
press releases from NASA's Space Telescope Science Institute:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1994/22/text/
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1996/15/image/a/ -
neither of which say anything of the kind. The second two references are
two unpublished papers by the same author Eduardo Battaner of the Univ. of
Granada in Espana - and while they suggest certain patterns to
cosmological structures, they don't really deal with the double-torus at
all. Or am I reading this all wrong?
Reading further, section 4a - "Galaxies spin too fast" - popped out at me
because of the list discussion on this topic. I read this part:
"A long-standing puzzle of galaxy behavior is the speed of their rotation.
Most estimates of their masses based on visible luminous matter conclude
the galaxies are spinning too fast for their estimated mass and by
Keplerian celestial mechanics, are spinning above escape velocity at all
regions from their bulges to their discs. According to such analysis they
should all fly apart. How do galaxies remain as organized systems rather
than dissipating as their matter escapes?
[cut for brevity]
An alternative approach may be to assume that our calculations are the
ones missing something."
It goes on from there. That's a pretty heavy statement! He's saying we
have some major unanswered questions about the nature of galaxies, and so
we need to completely get rid of the model we've been using.
So I thought, "hey, why don't I see what I can find out about this." I put
"galaxies spin too fast" into Google and found this:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970630d.html which
gives some mainstream context, and then did another search for MACHOS
(Massive Compact Halo Objects. What a hell of an acronym!) which,
conveniently, has a wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_compact_halo_objects
So ok, these things aren't wholly explained yet, but it looks like there
are some pretty reasonable theories and ideas out there regarding them
that explain how galactic structures maintain both their form and spin -
without having to throw Kepler out with the bathwater. Why wouldn't they
be considered by the authors with more care, or at least mentioned? I
mean, plenty of celestial bodies were mere theories before astronomers
could observe their effects on nearby, more highly visible bodies, and
then some means was found to observe them directly (example - large black
holes at the center of galaxies).
I don't know. I'm trying not to draw conclusions but I consider this to be
pretty fishy. Why wouldn't reasonable doubts about the phonomena of
galactic structures include theories that there are probably brown dwarfs,
small black holes and other difficult to see structures out on the
galactic rim?
That's all I have on the paper so far, I hope others will share their
thougts and observations. If I'm off base on anything, please let's
discuss it - really, it's ok :)
One other thought on this for now - I was curious about Haramein's
collaborator Dr. E.A. Rauscher. Her C.V. is here:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.layinstitute.org%2Fsecuredweb%2Fldf86lzkh587_92zxjf23ksljhbcmw5xbru_u43hamckflahw3okwh2dflusycyg.pdf&ei=8fboSY_GGOHgnQef4oigBw&usg=AFQjCNHAXXbTNTqvB7WRUZnCuLHO3L5fCQ
She seems to have been a scientist of modest distinction in the 60s and
70s, but she's has no published work or affiliation outside The Resonance
Project or her own lab (Tecnic Research Lab based in Arizona, about which
there's very little information online) since before 1999.
Nevertheless, TRP frequently credits her as "Distinguished Berkeley
scientist Dr. Rauscher", though she hasn't worked or studied there since
the 70s. She was also affiliated with Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory for a time as a staff researcher, but again that was decades
ago.
I don't mean this to smear her in any way, but I do think it's important
to balance this idea that her name on some of The Resonance Project's work
gives it more a good deal credibility than perhaps it deserves.
Bob La Bla
On Apr 15, 12:37 pm, matt atwood <mcatw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bruce, you're making a big assumption (along with many of the scientific
> community) that the spin of large bodies and small bodies are not the same
> phenomena.
When particle spin was first discovered, people thought it was the
same thing as the spin of large bodies (this is why the misnomor
"spin" got applied). It took a lot of years, a lot of study, and a
lot of experiments to understand that quantum-mechanical spin is a
completely different sort of thing. Unfortunately, it's not something
that can be explained in just a few words. For one thing, an electron
is a point particle - it has no size - what does it mean for a point
to be spinning? There's no simple to understand geometrical picture
that helps you understand it. But some naive idea that atoms are just
like little solar systems does a grave discredit to both chemistry and
astronomy....
Arash Amini
the first being that quantum mechanics is not a theory, therefore, currently open to interpretation. thus, i can actually believe spin to be whatever i want as long as i do the math properly.
secondly, math is the language of creation. when we are not observing, it is talking amongst itself in math. so when the math says something is happening, and our model does not, i will go with the math. so why does QM spin have units of angular momentum?
Bob La Bla
quotes standard texts like
Misner/Thorne/Wheeler on General Relativity, or Weyl on Group Theory.
Plus most of the citatations
are for Rauscher and Haremeins' own papers. The rest of the citations
are "boilerplate". This is
exactly what a padded bibliography looks like. Anyone actually
working in the field would recognize this. This bibligraphy would
only impress somebody completely unfamiliar with the field.
>
>
>
> > Alex, current Quantum Loop Gravity Theory, the current best accepted
> > unifier, suggests a big bounce as apposed to a big bang. What that
> > means for us is really unclear. I don't think we have to have these
> > answers to declare another to be methodically in error.
>
> > Spiral
>
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Alex Gordon-Brander
> > <agbran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Of course this all begs the REALLY big question of where did all this
> > matter
> > > and energy come from in the first place...? I don't have an issue with
> > the
> > > fact that its all spinning, but I do wonder how it got here at all. The
> > fact
> > > that we can give some plausible explanations for how we got here given
> > the
> > > existence of an exploding infinitely dense point of proto-energy still
> > > leaves me causally unfulfilled... which makes me teleologically itchy...
>
> > > Alex
>
Jeffrey Benner
I think some of the very broad ideas, e.g. nonlocality, the nature of space and time etc., are cool to talk about, but I'm always careful to hedge my comments.
Kathleen Ellis
> i have two points to throw onto the table.
> the first being that quantum mechanics is not a theory, therefore, currently
> open to interpretation. thus, i can actually believe spin to be whatever i
> want as long as i do the math properly.
OK, can you show us some math done properly that demonstrates we must
discard Newtonian mechanics/Quantum mechanics/whatever's on deck this
time?
> secondly, math is the language of creation. when we are not observing, it is
> talking amongst itself in math. so when the math says something is
> happening, and our model does not, i will go with the math. so why does QM
> spin have units of angular momentum?
I don't entirely follow you.
Bob La Bla
On Apr 21, 3:46 pm, Arash Amini <dumbfound...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i have two points to throw onto the table.
> the first being that quantum mechanics is not a theory,
> therefore, currently
> open to interpretation. thus, i can actually believe spin to be whatever i
> want as long as i do the math properly.
Quantum
mechanics, it's the simply-connected double-covering SU(3) that is
relevant.
> secondly, math is the language of creation. when we are not observing, it is
> talking amongst itself in math. so when the math says something is
> happening, and our model does not, i will go with the math. so why does QM
> spin have units of angular momentum?
Arash Amini
there are just too many wholes. i want to fill them in.
quantum spin has the same units as macroscopic spin the math says its the same thing. it could very well be our model that is incomplete, which i think is the obvious case.
Bob La Bla
On Apr 21, 4:05 pm, Arash Amini <dumbfound...@gmail.com> wrote:
> quantum spin has the same units as macroscopic spin the math says its the same thing
way imply that they are the same thing.
Debt and wealth both have units of dollars... so I guess they are the
same to you?
Alex Gordon-Brander
Bob, I would be interested in another example of two *physical* quantities that are different and have the same units...
Thanks,
Alex
Arash Amini
QM spin has the same sign as Newtonian spin. so they are EXACTLY the same units.
how does it imply they are the same thing!? because that's physics. i don't understand your point.
Bruce Gould
Arash says:
“perhaps that was a bit foolish of me to say. but i just wanted to focus on
the point that Nassim's ideas show the inherent unity in all things, not as
a combination of quarks, but as a living, feeling human being who has
mystical experiences every time he dreams. AND they coincide with all
serious ancient knowledge. if a GUT can't do that, then it's not complete.”
No, Harameins work doesn’t *show* anything, it’s an incoherent jumble of gibberish no one understands. But that’s how he’s raised millions of dollars – by playing off the love/hate relationship so many people have with science. People hate science because they feel it impedes their spirituality, or they hate it because it seems cold and lifeless; people love science because they sense it may be the only game in town. So it’s brilliant to claim that science somehow “proves” that everything is connected, that science in fact supports spirituality. Didn’t the founder of Scientology, Ron Hubbard, once say that the way to make a lot of money is to start a religion?
Arash Amini
but, a person has to exist to study either one, thus the very person is the bridge between the two worlds.
no matter how objective we try to be, the world is 100% subjective. no matter your day job, every one goes home and trips off DMT every night in their dreams, exploring their inner world regularly. in fact, it's a necessary bodily function.
read: http://www.amazon.com/DMT-Molecule-Revolutionary-Near-Death-Experiences/dp/0892819278
moving on,
what has Nassim shown?
+ There exists a fundamental 3D fractal, comprised of 64 tetrahedrons. (watch his video on google or go to his site : http://theresonanceproject.org/graphics.html)
+This fractal is mentioned, described, or alluded to in the torah, the bible, most other ancient texts, inscribed into the great pyramid ( a structure, by the by, that cannot be recreated with the most sophisticated modern equipment), all other pyramids around the globe, modern crop circles, http://www.circlemakers.org/totc2007.html. all over the place.
+Then, if you take this fractal, and spin it, one gets the double torus topology.
+Nassim and Elizabeth also derived this by adding torque and Coriolis forces to Einstein's Field Equations (i can't varify this completely because i can't yet follow tensor notation as is needed for their paper...so check this statement out for yourselves in particular).
LEMMA:now, the major axiom of the model is the role of the vacuum as an active medium with immense density. IT is the source of spin, charge, mass, the E and B fields.
so what's spinning is really the vacuum on itself. when the rate of spin is enough, there is a domain created (what we perceive as a particle). The E field is the flow of the vacuum and the B field is the local "pinching" of spacetime.
imagine a swimming pool with a hole in the bottom. you can see the vortex that forms. looking down on it, you can easily see the the geometry of the vortex remains still although the water molecules themselves are rushing in a spiral.
now, the standing pattern of the vortex is analogous to the B-field (pinched space-time) and the rushing water molecules would be the E-field (the flowing vacuum). you can either created the flow or pinch and the other will follow at 90 degrees.
even though there is only water there, one can pick out the vortex in question from afar.
What Nassim is saying (if you watch is his video) is that the vacuum itself follows this 3D fractal geometry.
Also, if this vacuum is real, then it must be like a superfluid, since we cannot measure it's effects (maybe with gravity probe B). if it is a superfluid, then that means that all of it's constituents have the same coherent wave function, thus connecting every part of the vacuum with every other part instantaneously (more at the bottom). This would immediatly imply then, that the vacuum is ONE single wave function, one "thing" (this could be interpreted as "God" or the like.)
+When you apply this topology to a black hole, while fulfilling the Schwarzschild condition, one can plot known black hole frequencies of rotation as a function of their radii. this gives shows a linear relationship for black hole's size and rotational speed.
+then, taking the smallest black hole to be a planck-sized one (as is assumed by QM), one gets the lower limit, and if one takes the estimated radius of the universe with its estimated rotational frequency (knowing there is enough mass in the universe for light to be unable to escape) and treating it as a black hole, one gets the upper limit. They all fit on the same line!
+Now, assuming atoms are black holes, and finding their mass as would be required by the Schwarzschild condition, one finds that they too fit on the line.
+Furthermore, the spacing of the different size scales (atomic to stellar, for example) follow the Phi ratio! (As does ALL of Nature...)
+Also, if one treats a proton as such a black hole and computes the dymanics of two such "Schwarzschild protons" spinning around each other, one finds, to an approximation, some very interesting things.
-the their velocity about their common center of mass is the speed of light
-the period of their rotation is the same order of magnitude as the strong force response time
-the frequency of their rotation is in the gamma ray spectrum (as would be expected from protons)
now, what this model helps explain:
-the discrepancy in rotational speeds of galaxies between calculated and observed results.
-the dual jets released by the mysterious supernovae mechanism (just look at the double torus topology on his site)
-new findings from Tajmar,
http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Tajmar_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
whose experiments show that gravity has two components, and they behave just like electric and magnetic fields.
-The ET phenomenon, why their ships are saucer shaped, always seen spinning, what the blue and green glows might be (ionized air, i say), and how can they take 90 degree turns at 10,000mph- a dipole in a steady external field creates around itself a sphere through which the external field does not penetrate (standard electrodynamics). so the ships are creating a gravitic dipole, the center of which is the local inertial reference frame.
-the whole host of gravitational anomalies in Astrophysics might be explained by standing waves created by every planet (each being a harmonic oscillator in a fluid, the vacuum)) only more time will tell about this one, but i think it's in the right ballpark.
-It also unifies macro and micro scales.
- for the case of the "Schwarzschild protons" above, it explains where the huge amount of energy utilized in strong force interactions comes from. a question this raises is: why the discrepancy between measure mass and Nassim's calculated mass? i have some ideas, but i'm not sure....
lastly, f the vacuum is viewed as superfluid, then it helps explain:
-quantum entanglement (since everything in the universe is 99.9999... percent vacuum).
-how twins, mothers, or any other couple who are extremely close (either genetically or emotionally) know instantly when the other is hurt/killed.
(read: http://www.amazon.com/Science-Akashic-Field-Integral-Everything/dp/1594771812/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240373996&sr=1-1
has LOTS of references, great read).
Ok, i took a lot of time in writing it, so i would greatly appreciate it if you really looked it through and try and see the bigger picture i'm hastily painting.
thank you.
Kathleen Ellis
> No, Harameins work doesn't *show* anything, it's an incoherent jumble of
> gibberish no one understands. But that's how he's raised millions of dollars
> - by playing off the love/hate relationship so many people have with
> science. People hate science because they feel it impedes their
> spirituality, or they hate it because it seems cold and lifeless; people
> love science because they sense it may be the only game in town.
Ooh ooh ooh you guys have to read this:
http://www.blogs.targetx.com/wildriverreview/penworldvoices/2007/08/scenes_from_a_symposium_2.html
smaller:
I feel like this view of science vs. spirituality is dated and should be
discarded. It's a relic of the 15th century papacy and I find it
discouraging when so-called open minded new agists think they're doing
something new and exciting by dissing on science. Science and spirituality
aren't the same thing, but they aren't OPPOSITES, either.
I think Star Trek messed a lot of people up. Everybody thinks of Spock
when they think of science. Think of Carl Sagan! The tan jacket, the elbow
patches, the "billions and billions". Think of Kary Mullis and his nutty
high-on-LSD nobel prizewinning revelation.
Did everybody see the announcement I posted yesterday to villagepost? I
will post it again here.
-K
Spiral Syzygy
Prizers. I think it funny how many LSD users would consider themselves
Laureates for this if only they can trip to the space beyond the
rotating 64 tetrahedrons.
So science doesn't answer everything. It doesn' t attempt to and
shouldn't. It can't tell YOU when YOU are in LOVE. Itss not it's job.
Its job is to give clear explanations for reproducibly observable
phenomena. There is a lot of reproducible observable phenomena to
explain. Much of it has been. The explainations come from hard work
and lots of experimenting.
Gotama Buddha suggested that everyone evaluate all information for
themselves. Even what he himself spoke, critically reason it out. If
it doesn't make sense to you, then don't hold on to it. The limits to
this come in science. We simply all can't run all the experiments for
ourselves. Some experiments require equipment and complex
environments that most of us have no idea how to work with.
So how do we preserve knowing for ourselves and incorporate an
ever-growing science? I have some ideas, but I would like to get a
feel for the pulse of this group on this one.
Spiral
Alex Gordon-Brander
Unfortunately there are far more LSD users than LSD using Nobel
Prizers.
This is not unfortunate. If the superset were not larger than the subset, then logic would be broken, and that would be unfortunate.
:)
a
Spiral Syzygy
Bruce Gould
I think there’s enough reason to suspect that Haramein doesn’t understand basic physics, as I’ve pointed out re his comments on spin and entropy. But that isn’t enough…..now we’ve got the universe as a black hole. Arash says:
“When you apply this topology to a black hole, while fulfilling the Schwarzschild condition, one can plot known black hole frequencies of rotation as a function of their radii. this gives shows a linear relationship for black hole's size and rotational speed. then, taking the smallest black hole to be a planck-sized one (as is assumed by QM), one gets the lower limit, and if one takes the estimated radius of the universe with its estimated rotational frequency (knowing there is enough mass in the universe for light to be unable to escape) and treating it as a black hole, one gets the upper limit. They all fit on the
same line!”
What’s the estimated rotational speed of the entire universe, Arash? I see that a few physicists play with this idea but it’s very far from an accepted idea, and its’ far, far from being measured. So Haramein picks some kinds of numbers and lo and behold, they all fit on a straight line! Haramein chose some structure of the brain (the microtubule) and it fits on some kind of straight line with other data points – as far as I’m concerned he really didn’t explain what the hell he was doing – but I’m sure that if the microtubules didn’t fit the bill maybe the Golgi bodies or inter-synaptic distances or any of a thousand other objects would fit the curve. And what’s his point in all this, what’s his theory, what are his predictions, how is it falsifiable…?
It isn’t science he’s doing. I still have no idea why people pay attention to him – I think this is a religious phenomenon.
Bruce Gould
Look at this website and read the bio of Maura (Malini) Hoffman:
http://www.starseeds.org/?q=node/2
She went on to pursue a successful career in corporate sales and marketing. She became the top sales professional while at Proctor and Gamble and was awarded sales person of the year at Infiniti. At Adventures At Sea Yacht charters she coordinated events and cruises including the New Zealand Challenge for the Americas cup. As a venture capitalist she has raised over one million dollars for land development projects……She studied Quantum Physics with Nassim Haramein and The Resonance Project , discovering the bridge between science and God.
Theories, anyone?
Spiral Syzygy
Arash Amini
Bob La Bla
> I many not be an expert on physics but I *am* qualified to speak about
> money... debt and wealth are the same thing in our currency system, just
> seen from different angles... *all* dollars are created from debt, so I am
> not sure that's a great example. Anyway, dollars are an arbitrary phenomenon
> that you can't measure with a stick... can we stay with physics please?
>
> Bob, I would be interested in another example of two *physical* quantities
> that are different and have the same units...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alex
little minus sign makes a huge difference! Anyhow, I was trying to be
a little bit funny with that example. We can stick to physics - I
have been thinking about this for a while and I can come up with lots
of examples of two different things that are measured in the same
units. Are degrees of latitude the same as degrees of longitude? Are
cubic meters of air the same as cubic meters of water? They are
measured in the same units, but this doesn't show that air and water
are the same - they are different things with different properties.
For a less trivial example: the force due to gravity and tension in a
stretched wire are both measured in newtons, but this does not prove
that gravity is caused by stretched wires.
One more example: Torque and Work are both measured in newton-meters -
so does this mean that all work is torque? Of course not... Somebody
with some sophistication in physics would say "But wait, torque is a
vector and work is scalar", and this is correct... and also somewhat
relevant in the discussion of quantum mechanics. hbar is a quantum of
'action' which is scalar... and angular momentum is a vector quantity.
Actually the story is more interesting than that, but you need to
understand a little bit about Lie groups, Clifford algebras, spinors
and representation theory... probably beyond most of the people on
this list, unfortunately (not trying to be elitist, just acknowleding
that very few people on this list have the relevant background, which
has to do with the sorry state of the educational system)... The
point is, angular momentum in the classical Newtonian setting is
described by rotations in 3-space, which are mathematically described
by 3x3 orthogonal matrices - the group SO(3), which operates on
vectors by the standard matrix multiplication. Quantum mechanical
spins are described by 2x2 complex unitary matrices - the group SU(2)
- which has a very interesting relationship to SO(3) - what the
topologists call a "universal covering space", which happens in this
case to be a two-sheeted covering - ie. there's a group homomorphism SU
(2)->SO(3) which collapses 2 points to 1. (x and -x get mapped to the
same matrix). SU(2) does not operate on Euclidean 3-vectors, it
operates on something called "spinors" (discovered in the 1920s) which
can be represented as *complex* 2-vectors (there are several different
ways to represent spinors) which can be somehow thought of as "square
roots" of vectors - they transform differently under rotations than
vectors do... In particular, rotating a spinor through 360 degrees
does *not* return it to its original orientation - you have to do
*two* full turns, 720 degrees, to get back where you started. This is
fascinating and important stuff, and from reading his papers its
pretty clear that Haremein doesn't understand a bit of it. Of course,
I'm rushing through this, I don't really expect anyone not familiar
with these concepts to pick it up from this brief overiew. Google for
the "belt trick", the "quaternionic handshake", or "spinors" if you
want more.
Kathleen Ellis
> HYPOTHETICALLY:
> what if nassim's theory is proved completely right? how would you feel?
I said this already, and it's kind of a fucked up question, but I'd be
really happy.
> also, here's a book that really changed my life, i think everyone should
> read it:
> http://www.amazon.com/New-Earth-Awakening-Purpose-Selection/dp/0452289963/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240436503&sr=8-1
May I also recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/Light-Life-Journey-Wholeness-Ultimate/dp/1594865248/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240437727&sr=1-1
(but please, don't buy it on amazon.)
Bob La Bla
why has our little group siezed on Nassim Haremein? It's partly a
social phenomenon - because the guy has been to Burning Man, he's
somehow 'one of us', it's fun to believe that a Burner has made a big
breakthrough in physics. I also think that certain individuals in our
community have been somewhat irresponsible in endorsing and supporting
Haremein, bringing him to Chicago and providing him with a forum.
Again, it's a social phenomenon, not really motivated by any search
for truth.
Why not drop Haremein and start reading the papers of Tony Smith on
"VouDou physics" - -
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/TShome.html
These papers are wildly speculative, but their author actually
understands some mathematics - the math and ideas you'll find in these
papers of Tony Smith are 1000 times more interesting than anything in
Haremein - Tony Smith seems to have a pretty good grip on Clifford
Algebras.
Or, try Matthew Watkins and his web site on prime numbers in physics -
"Inexplicable Secrets of Creation" - http://www.secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/
These papers are at least as interesting as Haremein's work - so why
have we singled out Haremein for our attention?
Bob La Bla
On Apr 15, 1:01 pm, matt atwood <mcatw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> His most recent paper, that points towards a relationship between the scale
> and spin of protons and galaxies, was published in a peer-reviewed journal
> that happens to be the math journal of the Belgium mathematical society! If
> that's not a reason to begin to pay attention to him, what else do you need?
Matt, the "International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems" is
*not* the math journal of the Belgian mathematical society. (And the
adjectival form of that word is "Belgian", not "Belgium"). It's not a
legitimate journal at all - it's a vanity journal published by a
fringe academic, Daniel M. Dubois. Most of the papers are his own
work. This is, sadly, not a rare event in academia - vanity journals
published by fringe academics. Google for "El Naschie" and "Ruggero
Maria Santilli" and "Florentin Smarandache" if you need more
examples. Sadly, just being published in a journal isn't good enough
anymore. It has to be a legitimate journal, like "Reviews of Modern
Physics", "Nuclear Physcics B", etc. Not the IJCAS, "published by
CHAOS".
That's not a real peer-reviewed journal, people should not be
impressed by the fact that Haremein published there! He's trying to
brow-beat people with a bogus achievement.
If you don't believe me, go to Citebase (or ask your research
librarian) and see how many citations there are for papers published
in the IJCAS. It's not a significant journal, and the fact that
Haremein published there proves nothing (other than that IJCAS is
desparate for content and Haremein is desperate to publish).
Bob La Bla
On Apr 22, 4:42 pm, Arash Amini <dumbfound...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i have a question to ask. you don't have to answer it, but i would really
> like it if you sat down for one full minute and played through this thought
> experiment.
> HYPOTHETICALLY:
> what if nassim's theory is proved completely right? how would you feel?
Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy turned out to be 100% true.
First I'd be dumfounded, and then I'd laugh my ass off.
Arash Amini
Bob La Bla
> moving on,
> what has Nassim shown?
> +Then, if you take this fractal, and spin it, one gets the double
> torus topology.
> +Nassim and Elizabeth also derived this by adding torque and
> Coriolis forces to Einstein's Field Equations (i can't varify this
> completely because i can't yet follow tensor notation as is needed
> for their paper...so check this statement out for yourselves in
> particular).
you so convinced that this theory is true?
Anyone who talks about adding the Coriolis force to General Relativity
clearly doesn't understand either of them. The Coriolis Effect shows
up in classical mechanics when considering a rotating reference frame
- like "centrifugal force" it is considered a "ficticious force", in
that there really isn't any force acting at all - it's an artefact of
working with a non-inertial reference frame. General relativity,
since it demands covariance across *all* reference frames, completely
eliminates this problem, and does not have any room (or need) for
centrifugal and Coriolis forces.
Arash - this is really basic stuff that you're getting tripped up on
(particle spin, Coriolis force, etc). If you get so easily decieved
and confused by errors and misstatments at such a basic level - things
that anyone who had studied freshman physics would understand - what
hope is there for you to understand deeper and more advanced topics?
Bruce Gould
Arash asks:
“what if nassim's theory is proved completely right? how would you feel?”
Let me put it this way: I read math books and not infrequently I email the authors with some problem or typo I see. There’s an understanding between us: we both know that after a few emails one of us is going to admit we were wrong – it’s gone both ways. Big f**king deal, it’s part of the game. I’m well past the point where I’d find it difficult to stand up and say I was wrong.
But what’s the point of the question? It seems strangely disconnected from any issue we’ve been talking about.
Arash Amini
Spiral Syzygy
I have been enjoying your contributions to this discussion, but I do
have a general question regarding your affiliation, if any, with The
Resonance Project.
Can you please detail your association with them please?
Spiral
Arash Amini
once again, you take one sentence, from my giant explanation, and focus of all your skepticism on it. what do you think about the rest of it?
have you any reason to not believe in his addition of the Coriolis effect and torque to Einstein's field equations? what line of math is it that tells you this is not right?
Arash Amini
I saw Nassim video on the internet a few months ago, emailed him about collaborating in some fashion and met him for the first time on the day of his chicago talk (april 14 i think?). this summer i plan on writing something with him and a chicago math professor. perhaps polishing up his current papers. i don't know.
Spiral Syzygy
with any talks here.
Spiral Syzygy
tripped up. Bob La Bla's physics background is that he is an MIT grad
who currently works with the ATLAS program at CERN.
Spiral
Arash Amini
Bob La Bla
> have you any reason to not believe in his addition of the Coriolis effect
> and torque to Einstein's field equations? what line of math is it that tells
> you this is not right?
The Coriolis Effect shows up in classical mechanics when considering a
Bruce Gould
Arash says: “it's not a theory because it cannot explain by what mechanism the observed
phenomena are created. it's matter of definition. a proper theory must go
one layer beneath the observed phenomena and state what is happening. this
is why there are dozens of interpretations of QM.”
John Baez, a mathematical physicist, has written up a crackpot index: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
The relevant question here is:
17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
Bruce Gould
> it's not a theory because it cannot explain by what mechanism the observed
> phenomena are created. it's matter of definition. a proper theory must go
> one layer beneath the observed phenomena and state what is happening.
I might add that in the 19th century there were all kinds of incredible models of magnetism and the “ether” that involved little wheels and gears and springs and vortices interacting with each other like tiny machines. It was all nonsense, of course.
Look, the most amazing thing about this discussion is that nobody can explain what Haramein’s theory actually IS. The bookstores are filled with high quality books written for the layman that give a good idea what kind of thinking lies behind general relativity or quantum mechanics or evolution or whatever – sometimes the essence of the theory can be explained in a few sentences (the main idea behind special relativity is that the laws of physics, which include the speed of light, will appear the same in all inertial frames of reference). Can anyone say what Haramein’s theory is?
In the lecture I asked Him what he meant by the “rotational speed of the universe”. If you were there, you’ll recall that he never answered the question. That’s what fascinates me about Haramein: he avoids all substantive explanation but still has true believers.
Arash Amini
i laid out his theory in a long post, please read it. ( i even posted it several times, just in case).
there are still many holes, but, please, try to look at the big picture here:
the quantum vacuum is a dynamic medium from which all the observable qualities yet discovered arise.
it is the cause of mass, charge, and spin.
the flow of the vacuum is the E-field.
the pinching of spacetime is the B-field.
the quantum vacuum behaves like a superfluid- it (all of the vacuum) is a single wavefunction.
this makes it inseparable and coherent.
does that make sense?
i thought you were a man of science? yet you point to some guy's personal check list, calling people names and ignoring ideas based on subjective beliefs.
every major discovery has been spear headed by one "crackpot" or another. (round earth, heavier-than-air flight, coldfusion etc)
so, personally, i believe the higher a person scores on John Baez's test, the more merit their ideas have.
we don't even know what charge or mass are! we don't have a clue as to what we're measuring, just that we can measure it over and over again.
lets not throw away any knowledge we currently hold, lets just look at it from a new perspective.
Bruce Gould
Arash asks: “Bruce, what is your background in physics?”
In the world of physics Haramein is a pure crank, but in crankdom he’s the hydrogen atom, the model that gives us SO much information about ourselves and how our minds work.
Haramein plays with our ambivalent relation with authority. The whole phenomenon is based on the idea that the “authorities” are somehow suppressing the truth, that they’re hidebound reactionaries willing to squash any fresh new thinking that might give us free zero point energy (for example). But scratch the surface and there’s something interesting going on: what Haramein is really saying – this comes out more clearly when you see him speak in person – is this: don’t trust the authorities but I, on the other hand, am an authority you can trust. Let ME be the authority. Why else would he show us *photos* of Wheeler, Misner and Thorne’s tome on gravity, if not to impress us with his authority?
Arash Amini
A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic
structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two
things:
- it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
- makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
Arash Amini
stop bashing the man's character and stick to the facts.
we are not here to judge his character- Feyman cheated on his wife with co-eds and did lots of drugs.
we're here to talk physics, not morality.
Bob La Bla
On Apr 25, 9:32 pm, Arash Amini <dumbfound...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you are avoiding my excellent points.
comments about Haremein's character, beyond the fact that he is
a liar.
#1. You said you are a physics major. I asked you where you are
studying, you did not answer.
#2. I've gone into quite a bit of detail about the difference between
vectors and spinors, which is a very important point in understanding
the notion of quantum-mechanical spin. You have made no comment on
this topic.
#3. I've explained why two quantitied having the same units of
measurement does not imply that they have the same meaning. Youy have
made no comment here either.
#4. I've explained why it makes absolutely no sense to talk about the
Coriolis force in the context of general relavitity, since GR does not
single out a particular coordinate frame. Adding the Coriolis force
to General Relativity is like adding propellors to a 747.
None of this has anything to do with Haremein's character. When you
are ready to talk about some of the actual science here, please let me
know. You just keep wriggling around to avoid the real issue, which
is that the science here is 100% bogus.
Notice that the editors of Wikipedia have *deleted* the Nassim
Haremein page, because they could find *ZERO* external references to
this guy's work, which were not hosted by Resonance Project.
> stop bashing the man's character and stick to the facts.
> we are not here to judge his character- Feyman cheated on his wife with
> co-eds and did lots of drugs. we're here to talk physics, not morality.
means did he do "lots of drugs". The character issue with Haremein is
that he is a blatant liar and a manipulator. This is based on the
fact that he is making numerous false claims, and CHARGING PEOPLE
MONEY for this nonsense. This conclusion is very easy to reach based
on the materials on his website.
Bruce Gould
“the quantum vacuum is a dynamic medium from which all the observable qualities yet discovered arise.
it is the cause of mass, charge, and spin.the flow of the vacuum is the E-field.
the pinching of spacetime is the B-field. the quantum vacuum behaves like a superfluid- it (all of the vacuum) is a
single wavefunction. this makes it inseparable and coherent.
does that make sense?”
No.
It’s not a theory, it’s a series of poetic images. It’s no different, at this stage, than putting forth the theory that God makes it all work. It makes no predictions we can observe, it can’t be falsified. It makes no numerical estimates of anything that it claims to explain.
I’ve had enough – I’m bowing out! Good luck to all Haramein followers.
Bob La Bla
> the quantum vacuum is a dynamic medium from which all the observable
> qualities yet discovered arise.
> it is the cause of mass, charge, and spin.
> the flow of the vacuum is the E-field.
> the pinching of spacetime is the B-field.
> the quantum vacuum behaves like a superfluid- it (all of the vacuum) is a
> single wavefunction.
> this makes it inseparable and coherent.
>
> does that make sense?
Kathleen Ellis
>> we are not here to judge his character- Feyman cheated on his wife with
>> co-eds and did lots of drugs. we're here to talk physics, not morality.
>
> Feynman experimented a little bit with marijuana and LSD, but by no
> means did he do "lots of drugs". The character issue with Haremein is
> that he is a blatant liar and a manipulator. This is based on the
> fact that he is making numerous false claims, and CHARGING PEOPLE
> MONEY for this nonsense. This conclusion is very easy to reach based
> on the materials on his website.
Also, who's going to point fingers at someone who's done drugs and fooled
around - on this list - and say that makes them a bad person? Cmon now.
Arash Amini
Best,
Arash Amini.
Bob La Bla
finished yet. I'd like to hear a reply to these points:
#1. You said you are a physics major. Where are you studying?
#2. I've gone into quite a bit of detail about the difference between
vectors and spinors, which is a very important point in understanding
notion of spinors and vectors? Do you know the difference between
the Orthogonal group and the Unitary group? (Haramein confuses the
two).
#3. I've explained why two quantitied having the same units of
measurement does not imply that they have the same meaning.
#4. I've explained why it makes absolutely no sense to talk about the
Coriolis force in the context of general relavitity, since GR does not
Thanks!
Arash Amini
1: I'm studying at the university of Illinois at chicago (am 3 physics courses away from an undergraduate degree)
2: off the top of my head, i did not know the difference between the orthogonal group and the unitary group,
reading on wikipedia helped a little, but i would really need a formal introduction to differential geometry.
on vectors and spinors:
from what i understand, a spinor is a higher dimensional vector that can keep more information regarding its transformations.
but i have only been introduced to spinors in my QM II class this semester, and only as far as the total spin of two particle systems. so my knowledge of them is quite sparse.
could you recommend a place to get started this summer?
3:
this is an odd point to me. maybe i'm not understanding fully. when two quantities have the same units, they are the same, if not very closely related.
this is how i see it: nature is telling us they are the same, our model is telling us otherwise.
you said you explained this, but i can't seem to find your explanation. could you elaborate?
4:
"it makes no sense?"...well then, maybe we could modify GR so that it does make sense. in the end, what we're trying to describe is the fluid-like dynamics of the vacuum. so then the center of each double-toroid would be the ideal coordinate frame for that said particle, black hole, galaxy, or what have you.
is there room for GR to be modified to include the idea of the Coriolis effect?
if not, perhaps we can create a new theory that barrows concepts from GR.
Bob La Bla
> courses away from an undergraduate degree)
instructors?
> 2: off the top of my head, i did not know the difference between the
> orthogonal group and the unitary group,
> and only as far as the total spin of two particle systems. so my knowledge
> of them is quite sparse
spin. Without understanding the relevant group theory and geometry,
you are simply unequipped to evaluate any of the claims Haremein
makes.
> could you recommend a place to get started this summer?
"The Feynman Lectures on Physics".
> this is an odd point to me. maybe i'm not understanding fully. when two
> quantities have the same units, they are the same, if not very closely
> related.
> could you elaborate?
expressed in Newtons. So, is gravity due to a bunch of little
springs pulling everything down to earth?
Torque and work (energy) are both measured in newton-meters. So, is
all energy torque? Of course not.
Finally, I explained that h-bar (the Planck constant) is really a unit
of *action*, not angular momentum. Angular momentum and action are
not the same, although they can be measured in the same units. (Just
like cubic meters can measure air or water, but that doesn't mean air
and water are identical).
>
> 4:
> "it makes no sense?"...well then, maybe we could modify GR so that it does
> make sense.
to modify a theory you don't even understand?) The point is that the
Coriolis effect is an artefact due to working in a rotating coordinate
system ('non-inertial frame'). The great success of general
relativity is that it puts ALL reference frames (inertial and non-
inertial) on the same footing, thereby *eliminating* all need for
"ficticious forces" like the centrifugal force or Coriolis force. The
fact that you want to add Coriolis forces to General Relativity just
shows that you don't understand either of these things.
> in the end, what we're trying to describe is the fluid-like
> dynamics of the vacuum. so then the center of each double-toroid would be
> the ideal coordinate frame for that said particle, black hole, galaxy, or
> what have you.
signifying nothing)
> is there room for GR to be modified to include the idea of the Coriolis
> effect?
a propellor. (Or maybe swim-fins).
Why are you so passionately committed to this flawed idea?
Arash Amini
Bob La Bla
On Apr 27, 1:13 pm, Arash Amini <dumbfound...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok, on the topic of units:
> i see your point. but tourque and work are quite similar physically. work is
> (force)*(displacement) and torque is (force)x(displacement). they are very
> similiar, cousins, if you will.
> force of gravity and force of springs are both forces, we could model
> gravity with two springs with different constants. they are similar too.
> so QM spin and angular spin could very well be "cousins" too.
>
> on GR:
> it doesn't need modifying? we don't even know what gravity is, yet we say
> our models of it do not need modifying. if GR is perfect, then something
> else needs modifying.
with quantum
mechanics. This might require some modification of both GR and QM.
But not
along the lines Nassim is proposing.
> the way i see it is that the number of mysteries regarding gravity times
> the number of theories trying to explain it equals the magnitude of our
> misunderstanding.
> (mysteries)*(theories)= |misunderstanding|
(mysteries) * (theories) * (people who don't know what they're talking
about) = | misunderstanding |
> why am i so passionately commited to this flawed idea?
> because no mainstream idea i've run across, can tell me what charge, mass,
> and "fields" actually are.
itself,
what a "theory" actually means in the physical sciences. You're
looking for this
extra layer of what's "actually" going on, instead of understanding
that what is
"actually" going on is just what is being measured in experiments in
laboratories
(and observatories).
> what is a particle? what is gravity?
> the closest i get is "you'll get it in grad school, you don't know enough
> math yet."
operator-valued
distribution - given a "test function" (Schwartz function) on
spacetime, the quantum field
returns an linear operator on the Hilbert space (or Fock space) of
quantum states.
Gravitation is curvature of space-time.
> that's bs to me. nature is simple and elegant. a fundamental truth of life
> should not require 18 years of math classes to understand.
bad that our educational
system gets off to such a slow start - you don't start getting to any
of the interesting stuff until
college.
> so it's definitely not just Nassim, there's an entire community on the
> fringes of science
> they would love to get their stuff published in Nature or The Journal of
> Physics, but the peer review process isn't the most open
> they are trying to explain, physically, what mass, charge, spin, gravity, EM
> fields, particles, are.
the same thing
to you as it means to me.
> also, many mainstream scientist disregard so much observation because it
> doesn't fit with their model.
under scrutiny. Look how
quickly the "mainstream" accepted the idea of dark matter in the
cosmos. Our entire picture
of the universe has been radically overhauled, in the course of 10-15
years. Science welcomes
new data and new ideas. What it doesn't welcome is self-promoting
liars.
> so, i'm trying to take in everything everyone says and draw the line of best
> fit. i don't care if you have a Phd or if you're homeless, i just want to
> hear your idea.
to be skewed far from the
truth. IE I don't need to incorporate some Christian fundamentalist
idea that the Universe
is 6000 years old. You have to reject certain things if you want to
find the truth...