Unified Field Theory(a solution to Einsteins field equations

[ophiuchus]

it's been brought up in several threads now, so it might as well have it's own topic. nassim haramein has discovered the math that unifies the strong and weak field theories that einstein created, but could not solve.

Nassim Haramein's award winning scientific paper, "The Schwarzschild Proton," has passed the peer review process and has been published at the American Institute of Physics (AIP) Conference Proceedings. The table of contents of the proceedings book can be found on their site and should soon be updated with full text.

the paper can be downloaded (pdf) by following the link below, and clicking the link to download it in the second paragraph: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... Foundation

if you're not much into math, i've included a link to a talk he did that covers a good bit of the material that he's discovered, and what this means for our society, and the good news is, it's done in a way that most people will be able to understand without a degree. enjoy!
(part 1 of 4)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1256390335


.

 

[maxfreakout]

Also read this blogpost 'Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?':
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... -sage.html

Nassim Haramein has very little insight into reality from any sort of scientific perspective. I'd like to explain why I believe that any claims on his part of being a physicist, of using any scientific method, or of having any understanding of mathematical principles at all, are utterly bogus. I'd like to give you what I believe are very sound reasons and evidence as to why I say this, and why it is important.

 

[masternavigator11]

news that good this is

 

[IJesusChrist]

yeah.. looks like he is a bit far-fetched.

I read his paper and was seeing the astronomical numbers he was using without explanation, other than "lets assume [this]".

At one point he talks about 10^49 dynes which is about 10^44 newtons, and to put that in perspective the force the EARTH exerts on a normal human being is 686 N.

That means that the FORCE that two protons exert on each other is about equal to two earth's gravitational pull on each other.

Meaning in order to split a nucleus, all other things being equal, you need the /more/ energy than it would take to pull the moon away from earth.

So, uh, yeah he seems wrong.

 

[ophiuchus]

im not going to begin to try and explain his math. if something doesn't make sense, watch the video, i put it there for a reason. in it, all of the math that he uses is thoroughly explained as to why it was chosen and why/how it works. this man has already won an award for this paper, which has been peer reviewed mind you. so before dismissing it with our expert internet math skills, maybe we should investigate it ourselves instead of:

Also read this blogpost 'Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?':
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... -sage.html

Nassim Haramein has very little insight into reality from any sort of scientific perspective. I'd like to explain why I believe that any claims on his part of being a physicist, of using any scientific method, or of having any understanding of mathematical principles at all, are utterly bogus. I'd like to give you what I believe are very sound reasons and evidence as to why I say this, and why it is important.

using the first page of google:nassim haramein to base our final judgements on... i dont think that man who wrote that has any qualification/degree to be reviewing math of that complexity, as is evident in reading the rest of his opinion...

i will admit, that paper with all of it's equations can get me pretty lost, but everything contained in the video is fool-proof to understand, and it makes a lot of sense.

don't knock it before you clock it.

 

[IJesusChrist]

Well man,

I hate to break it to you, but a lot of what he says just doesn't make any sense.

F= G*(m1)*(m2) \ d^2

[gravitational attraction between two protons]
And he gets something like 10^49 dines. To give you a realization of how far off that is from what we feel every second, here is the number you would have to multiply our gravitation by in order to make up for this amazingly cool number;
100000000000000000000000000000000000000.

He explains all of it very well, but doesn't get anywhere with it. He doesn't unify any field theories, he just gives an extreme example of how a shwarzchild proton may exist.

He doesn't explain, however, why we aren't all black holes. He makes the assumption that each proton has the mass of
100000000000 kilograms, or about the mass of a large mountain.

It just isn't true... the paper is nothing more than an the writings of a man with an interesting imagination. Sorry to burst any bubbles.

 

[maxfreakout]

this man has already won an award for this paper, which has been peer reviewed mind you.

Nothing that this man has written has ever been through the peer review process, and no self-respecting scientist or physicist would ever bother to do so. He is 100% fraud and nothign he says has any real mathematical or scientific significance, try and find one actual scientist who takes him seriously, there arent any.....

instead of continuing to parrot this man's lie that he has a paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal, try to actually FIND the journal, you wont be able to because it doesnt exist, QED this guy is just a liar, his paper isnt worth taking the time to read, it says nothing if any scientific relevance whatsoever. The only people who will see some 'value' in this man's work, are people with a lower grasp of mathematics and physics than he has, he is a naked emperor

 

[maxfreakout]

[gravitational attraction between two protons]
And he gets something like 10^49 dines. To give you a realization of how far off that is from what we feel every second, here is the number you would have to multiply our gravitation by in order to make up for this amazingly cool number;
100000000000000000000000000000000000000.

his basic theory which he says in his paper is something like "assume that a proton has as much gravity as a black hole", even though it never does, that is a snapshot of this man's 'genius', a single absurd assumption, followed by a load of useless mathematics

 

[ophiuchus]

this man has already won an award for this paper, which has been peer reviewed mind you.

Nothing that this man has written has ever been through the peer review process, and no self-respecting scientist or physicist would ever bother to do so. He is 100% fraud and nothign he says has any real mathematical or scientific significance, try and find one actual scientist who takes him seriously, there arent any.....

instead of continuing to parrot this man's lie that he has a paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal, try to actually FIND the journal, you wont be able to because it doesnt exist, QED this guy is just a liar, his paper isnt worth taking the time to read, it says nothing if any scientific relevance whatsoever. The only people who will see some 'value' in this man's work, are people with a lower grasp of mathematics and physics than he has, he is a naked emperor

i believe trolling is against the forum rules...

i can tell that you haven't bothered to look anywhere to back up the bullshit misinformation you are spreading, nor do you have any grasp of the theory that he presents. that is not to say that i don't think you are capable, it is quite easy to grasp, it is simply to say that i just think you haven't even tried. again, if you don't get it, watch the video. a bright five year old could follow it.

the journal is available here, on the American Institute of Physics website. :? i doubt that you will call the AIP a bunch of liars.

http://scitation.aip.org/proceedings/co ... d/1303.jsp

that's the main page. if you click below the toolbar to the top right, where it says "online version: table of contents and full text" you will see a list of all the other scientist included in the journal. Nassim Haramein is on page 95. actually here is a link to that page so you don't have to be bothered by clicking twice instead of just once.

http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KE ... 03&Issue=1

now on the AIP website it asks you to order the journal, but Nassim was kind enough to include the AIP's version on his own website, which contains several amendments, so that it is even more up to date. in the link below there is this journal on the schwarzchild proton, as well as many other papers he has written that have also been published.

http://theresonanceproject.org/research/scientific

it is important to note also that his paper has already been cited in further research. one example is a paper by Dr. John J. Kineman (University of Colorado) which was published by the International Society for the Systems Sciences. the paper is called "Relational Self-Similar Space-Time Cosmology Revisited" and can be found below.

http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proc ... e/1498/511

Voir la pièce jointe 5152

 

[ophiuchus]

I hate to break it to you, but a lot of what he says just doesn't make any sense.

im sorry that it doesn't make sense to you. there's nothing being broken to me, however, because it isn't my fault. these are advanced mathematics. they took decades to discover. do you really find yourself so great as to comprehend the whole of it in a matter of minutes?

his basic theory which he says in his paper is something like "assume that a proton has as much gravity as a black hole", even though it never does

is that so? so that would mean that you accept the standard model of the proton then? try and find it on this graph. kind of fun, it's like where is waldo (remember you can scroll up and down if the photo is scaled down)
Voir la pièce jointe 5153
you know, the video clearly outlines why he says that. he doesn't just say "assume that a proton has as much gravity as a black hole" he explains at length how he arrived at the conclusion, and even explains the math describing the mass of both the standard model proton, as well as the schwarzchild proton, if anyone has bothered to watch it... :idea:

 

[maxfreakout]

Allusion, you said that this man has had his work published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, however the link you posted was to a review of a small conference at a Beligian university, and NOT to a peer reviewed journal, i still want to know what journal this man was published it (if it exists)

do you know what a 'peer reviewed acadmic journal is? You should read the wikipedia page on the 'peer review' process, basically it means that every essay in a journal is thoroughly reviewed and critiqued by a team of top academics in the relevant field, to ensure their academic credibility and high-standard.

please show some evidence that this man's work has ACTUALLY been published in a peer reviewed journal, or else save your time and admit that it hasnt (because no self-respecting academic peer-reviewer would ever waste their time reading any of his meaningless papers)

I will repeat myself for clarity, this man has NEVER had his work published in any peer reviewed journal, PLEASE prove me wrong (ALL you have to do, is to name the peer reviewed journal he is published in, just say what is the name of the journal, or else admit that it doesnt exist), or else stop dragging down the intellectual standard of this (already intellectually-crippled) forum even further by posting lies about this fake fraudulent pseudo-scientist. If this man is so good, why doesnt he have his own wikipedia entry? - It is because he is not a scientist, and he isnt contributing anything new to the field of science

whatever value this man has (if he does actually have any value), he has no scientific value, he is not a scientist

 

[maxfreakout]

is that so? so that would mean that you accept the standard model of the proton then?

im not a physicist, i didnt mention which 'model of the proton' i accept or dont accept

im talking about this man's "theory", not about my own beliefs. The theory does not reflect reality, when protons are measured, they are found to weigh about 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram, however, in this man's paper, he talks about a kind of proton which weighs 885 million metric tonnes. This special 'Schwarzschild' proton does not exist, so therefore the theory is meaningless, it has no application to the real world

 

[IJesusChrist]

Allusion,

Again - I hate to break it to you but the paper includes actually very simple math (it was all covered in my physics 1 & 2 courses). He uses no advanced mathematics whatsoever, and is almost completely reliant on equations that I could find in my room within 5 minutes.

In short, I understood the paper in 10 minutes.

The only thing the paper states is that, if it were possible (which is such an absurd statement) that the mass of a proton could exert a gravitational force the size of a mountain, than, yes, the proton would be stabilized in a spiral about another proton.

Both the mass "assumption" and the centrifugal forces are not reflections of reality in any way. Protons don't go spinning around each other.

And in fact, he says, in the start of the paper, that he is not using complex mathematics, he is using mathematics from the 1800's (the EARLY 1800's).

Just let it go allusion, he's not a physicist, he's just got an extraordinary imagination.

And it doesn't make sense that you should dismiss me from understanding his paper, when you obviously haven't a clue about it... It makes even less sense for you to defend him than for me to degrade him - although I am not. HE never said this solved anything - you did. HE is just making an improbable possibility validate an unknown idea. Its like imagining a wormhole - he proved one aspect of it correct, but the entire foundation of his assumptions have no bearing in reality.

get it?

 

[IJesusChrist]

He really sounds exactly like me and my dad when we smoke too much marijane.

I see what he is saying, and it is very interesting, it makes sense up to a point, and it is very appealing. However, there are points he misses in all of his topics that counter-act his "genius".

but ... watching the video he is puzzled why electrons don't slow down in orbiting a proton. Same reason the earth doesn't...

and... no he doesn't explain how a proton weighs more than the human body [ which is made of protons ]

 

[ophiuchus]

i already showed the peer-reviewed journals that he has been published in. they are academic journals. and they are peer reviewed... while i admit that they may not be considered mainstream academic journals, i think it is important in this light to perhaps look at and further understand the peer review process. yes, i have already read the wikipedia article on peer review, and i think it is an excellent point to bring up.

here, peer review is defined as:

Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.

sounds great, in a utopian world..

below, it is important to note that criticism does not necessarily mean "negative criticism", however, the entire section that critiques the peer review process seems to, well, read it yourself...

While passing the peer review process is often considered in the scientific community to be a certification of validity,[citation needed] it is not without its problems. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986.[24] He remarks,

There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.[25]

[edit] Allegations of bias and suppression

The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers always raises the possibility that the intermediators may serve as gatekeepers.[26] Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[27] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[28][29][30] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views,[31] and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued,[by whom?] ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[32]
[edit] Peer review failures
Main article: Peer review failure

Peer review failures occur when a peer-reviewed article contains obvious fundamental errors that undermine at least one of its main conclusions. Many journals have no procedure to deal with peer review failures beyond publishing letters to the editor.[33]

Peer review in scientific journals assumes that the article reviewed has been honestly written, and the process is not designed to detect fraud.[34

if this is not convincing due to the nature of wikipedia, how about another source:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... r-review-p

in many cases, as we have seen here, there lies a very large margin for what kind of things happen in the peer review process. on one side you have things being published which may or may not even make sense grammatically, have mathematical errors :shock: , or be totally plagiarized , as "the process is not designed to detect fraud". on the other side, you have wholly valid theories being shut down due to bias such as racism or sexism, with no regard to the "validity" of it whatsoever. this process itself, which is done via single blind, meaning, the reviewers know all of the applicants personal information, and the applicant knows nothing about the reviewers, is in dire need of revamping, yet, not surprisingly, none of the reviewers would like either transparency, nor double blind scenarios...

it's easy to be bias/racist/sexist toward somebody when they can't ever find out who's doing it or why. it's easy to spread lies about people when you don't have to worry about your reputation being tarnished...

nevertheless, he is still persisting in submitting his research to more of the major institutions.

Allusion, you said that this man has had his work published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, however the link you posted was to a review of a small conference at a Beligian university, and NOT to a peer reviewed journal, i still want to know what journal this man was published it (if it exists)

it's getting tiring pointing to things that i have already posted, that neither of you bothered to read/watch before commenting... as i already said before, he has been peer-reviewed and published by such places as the Department of Mathematics in Leige, the American Institute of Physics, and The Noetic Press (the publishing division of The Noetic Advanced Studies Institute), which, if you had bothered to read all of my posts, or view the material that i have linked to them, you wouldn't have had such an ignorant misunderstanding of, and i wouldn't have needed to re-hash all of this. im really not sure why you have such a violent opposition to this mans work. every angle you have presented thus far is solely from an ignorant/uneducated standpoint, in that you are willingly refusing to view the information that i have provided in order to gain a solid understanding of his theory...

once again, nobody is really breaking anything to me, because it is not my fault that you don't understand why he uses the values that he does. maybe, just maybe, you should watch the video that i posted originally before you keep trolling in this thread.

the first link was the to explain the theory of the existence of the schwarzchild proton. the second one, the video that you didn't watch, was the one that showed the solution to einsteins field equations. for ease of access, here it is again http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1256390335

nothing else posted concerning his mathematics (which i do understand) is worth acknowledging until you consume the information that was provided for this topic/debate.

 

[maxfreakout]

i already showed the peer-reviewed journals that he has been published in.

You provided a link to a review of a conference at a Beligian university (the conference took place at the university, but it was not affiliated with or organised by the university, anyone can hire a room at a university for a conference), this is not a 'peer reviewed journal', since the people who 'reviewed' it were not academic peers, they were just people who went to the conference, which was open to the public, none of them were university academics. YOU could have gone to that conference, and submitted a review of that man's paper, but you are not an academic peer, so you cannot say that the conference review was a 'peer reviewed journal'.

they are academic journals.

WHICH journals????, please NAME the academic journal in which this man was published, or admit that it doesnt exist. and remember, a public review of a public conference (which although it took place at a university, was not affiliated with, or organised by that university) is an entirely different thing from a peer reviewed journal

to illustrate the difference, consider that peer reviewed journals are distributed extensively across academic libraries, you will not find an academic library anywhere in the world which has the 'schwarzchild proton' paper in it (go on, prove me wrong, all academic libraries have online search functions, it will take you 5 minutes)

and they are peer reviewed

I repeat, nothing that this man has ever written, has ever passed through the peer review process, if it had, you should be able to NAME the peer reviewed academic journal in which it appeared, and find it on jstor and in university libraries, yet it is nowhere to be found, in either of those places

... while i admit that they may not be considered mainstream academic journals

they are not in any sense 'academic', because they are not written by academics (people with top academic qualifications, this is what is meant by the word 'peers')

he has been peer-reviewed and published by such places as the Department of Mathematics in Leige

This ^ is a lie, the university of Liege mathematics department has never published anything that this man has ever written. Why would they? This man is not a mathematician, he has no academic training in mathematics and none of the mathematics in any of his papers gets beyond a fairly basic level, so why would a university mathematics department want to publish him?

please either admit that this claim about a paper being published by a university mathematics department is a lie, or else provide a link to this nonexistent paper

the American Institute of Physics

the american institute of physics published a review of a conference (NOT a peer reviewed journal), at which this man had presented a paper, this conference review was not reviewed by a team of academic peers, and did not appear in a peer reviewed journal

and The Noetic Press (the publishing division of The Noetic Advanced Studies Institute)

this is a new age group and are in no sense 'academics' or 'scientists', nothing which they do is peer reviewed, and none of their publications can be found in any academic libraries

nevertheless, he is still persisting in submitting his research to more of the major institutions

he has been trying repeatedly for 10 years to get a real academic institution to publish some of his meaningless pseudoscience, so far he has been turned down every single time (why do you think that is), and that will always continue to be the case, no self-respecting scientist or academic would have anything whatsoever to do with this man's lunacy

This man is nothing but a fraud and pseudo-academic

 

[IJesusChrist]

He really sounds exactly like me and my dad when we smoke too much marijane.

I see what he is saying, and it is very interesting, it makes sense up to a point, and it is very appealing. However, there are points he misses in all of his topics that counter-act his "genius".

but ... watching the video he is puzzled why electrons don't slow down in orbiting a proton. Same reason the earth doesn't...

and... no he doesn't explain how a proton weighs more than the human body [ which is made of protons ]

I watched the second video for fucks sake. I understand it. You obviously don't.

Accept it.
accept it.
acceeeeept it.
accept it.........

now you won't because I'm being offensive.

 

[ophiuchus]

*smh*

we've already been over this. i've already stated that he is not published in mainstream journals, he admits that he's never been published in mainstream journals, so why would you expect his work to appear in a database full only of mainstream journals? just because they are not in the systems you are using does not mean that they are not academic. i've given you plenty of information on the matter, so either accept it or do not. im not having a 10 page long debate with 2 of the most closed-minded people on this forum. your inability to grasp the most basic of statements or questions in previous debates (often interpreting my message as the precise opposite of the point that i've made) limits the amount of serious mental energy i can afford to give you. it's disappointing that the forum has been reduced to this. it looking to me like i may need to move on to bigger and better things... im done posting in this thread. there's no need for either of us to keep beating a dead horse.

 

[maxfreakout]

i've already stated that he is not published in mainstream journals

To be absolutely specific, he has not been published in a peer reviewed academic journal, ie a journal where every article is carefully scrutinised by a team of top-level academics, and he never will be, because none of his work comes anywhere near to academic standards of rigour and accuracy. He has been trying for 10 years to get his work peer reviewed, but he has been continuously refused.

You and many of this man's devotees insist on falsely claiming (= lying) that he has had papers published in academic peer reviewed journals, the truth is that nothing this man has ever written has been through the peer review process, and never will (because everything he has ever written is total nonsense, and professional academics would never waste their time attempting to peer review such nonsense)

this man has spent 10 years continually submitting his work to proper academic journals, and every single time he has been refused, that gives a very good indication of the total lack of value in this man's work, he will be confined to making retarded converts from his youtube videos for the rest of his career, as he should be

it's up to you if you want to devote your time to a wortless fraud, but if you start preaching lies about him on public forum this kind of thing is bound to happen, you might not care about truth and accuracy, but many other people do

 

[IJesusChrist]

Allusion,
If it is so clear to you, please explain to me this concept that he is presenting in his paper. Please. I've read, and I'm fairly confident that what I have gained from it is exactly what I have stated above:

It proves nothing.

He never, not in any of the 8 hours of mostly wasted time (a few interesting points, but not many) in those videos does he ever answer the question of why one atom, with a mass the size of a mountain, have no bearing on reality, yet is suppose to "solve" any type of problem.

Please, elaborate. because I'm obviously too closed minded. I think the better term here is that you are in tunnel vision.