"Theory of Everything Discovered" :

When a "physicist" has more whimsy than math in his lectures than you can be skeptical immediately.

I like a whimsical scientist but one that puts their science first.
 
Nassim Haraneim - The Black Whole


Nassim Haramein: Sacred Geometry And Unified Fields


I haven't seen them myself, yet.
 
Thanks for the links Pollux. Very interesting, and so much information about physics that I was not aware of. Just curious Paul, did you even bother looking into any of this before dismissing it all outright? NTM, the hate and vitriol displayed by "bobathon" (yeah, look up the meaning of THAT) and his/her followers in the comments section is just awful.
 

We are aware of the fact that the man has been vilified by those sites of materialists , no wonder.
Anyone who would dare go beyond the holy cows of materialism would be branded as a heretic , a crank or worse by the modern inquisition of the materialist mainstream 'scientific " priesthood. lol

See this on the subject :


http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...sion-be-called-meaning.2006/page-3#post-61540
 
You wish you were the Nassim? (Or you are the Nassim, and you wish you were just a namesake?)
 
Paul, do you have any original comments to make regarding Nassim's paper:
http://hiup.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/AIP_CP_SProton_Haramein.pdf

I don't know whether it's original, but my comment is that an error has been made going from equation (15) to equation (16), and as a result the answer for the velocity is wrong by 39 orders of magnitude. (But I doubt it matters, because the model seems to depend on particles travelling at nearly the speed of light obeying Newtonian dynamics, which of course they don't.)
 
I don't know whether it's original, but my comment is that an error has been made going from equation (15) to equation (16), and as a result the answer for the velocity is wrong by 39 orders of magnitude. (But I doubt it matters, because the model seems to depend on particles travelling at nearly the speed of light obeying Newtonian dynamics, which of course they don't.)

You're right.. he dropped out the square root. Nevertheless the velocity is approximately c as he states, and that mistake doesn't affect any of his conclusions. Have you found any other mistakes?
 
Apart from modelling the behaviour of protons at near-light velocities by ignoring relativistic and quantum effects, no.
 
Apart from modelling the behaviour of protons at near-light velocities by ignoring relativistic and quantum effects, no.

Considering the origin of mass is still unknown, and considering that properties of tiny black holes are not well understood, wouldn't it be worth seeing where this theory leads? Considering his logarithmic plot of mass and radius lines up so nicely and seems to follow a phi ratio pattern, there's got to be some level of reality to what he is proposing.

I think materialistic physicists are hindered by their presupposition that the universe is random and meaningless. They are trying to fit together the pieces of a puzzle based on the shapes of the little pieces alone while failing to recognize the colors and lines on them form a larger pattern.. The big picture.
 
It just makes no sense at all, as far as I can see.

Okay let's forget about the schwarzschild proton idea for a moment since there are many theories it upsets and there are many mechanisms to be figured out there. Lets just stick to the facts that aren't even controversial: do you find it significant that the volume of a proton multiplied by the vacuum density gives the mass of the universe? Or that the mass of the universe inside a radius of 13.7 billion light years is a black hole?
 
Okay let's forget about the schwarzschild proton idea for a moment since there are many theories it upsets and there are many mechanisms to be figured out there. Lets just stick to the facts that aren't even controversial: do you find it significant that the volume of a proton multiplied by the vacuum density gives the mass of the universe? Or that the mass of the universe inside a radius of 13.7 billion light years is a black hole?

I don't know, and I haven't checked the calculation. (And why should the second be considered significant anyway?)

But that remark seems quite incidental to the rest of the paper anyway.
 
Back
Top