View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream science!

Discussions about Metaphysics, Quantum Physics, the Holographic Universe and the Nature of Reality.

Re: Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream scien

Postby Scepcop » 26 Dec 2010, 17:49

Arouet wrote:
Scepcop wrote:So peer reviewed and consensus = truth to you? Why?


Close, but not quite. Peer review helps ensure that rigourous standards are imposed on the research and flaws are brought to the surface. Consensus means that the large proportion of the leaders of the field have examined it and support it.

As for truth: as I've often said, I don't look for truth, I look for confidence levels. If the vast number of physicists support a particular hypothesis, this lets us assign a high confidence value. Does that mean truth? Well, not necessarily, but it means that its the best we have under current circumstances.

Could this guy be right even though there is no consensus around his hypotheses? Of course! But its less likely.

As a lay person, I have no choice but to go along with the consensus since I have no way of actually evaluating what is being said. This is extraordinarily complex stuff and if you don't have a physics degree: good luck!

If his hypothesis is correct, he'll be able to demonstrate it and it will gain acceptance.

The fact that it was presented was a milestone.


Maybe, I don't know. As I understand it conferences often like to present some left field ideas. It simply says the organizers found it interesting.

My concern was more with the disingenuity of trying to present the paper as something more than it was.

You guys ought to watch Nassim's presentation in the video above. You might learn something. Don't you think?


Maybe - but probably not much. This is highly complex stuff. I have no way whatsoever of evaluating what he says. I could only have the barest understanding. I'll wait for the consensus. I'm not particularly invested in anyone's physics research - let the experts hash it out then let the rest of us know!


Ok fair enough. This area is beyond both of us. But let's look at your reasoning above for a moment. You are saying that a consensus means a higher degree of confidence. Well what about the fact that most people believe in God or have experienced him deep down? Or the fact that around half the world's population at least, has experienced SOMETHING paranormal that does not seem attributable to coincidence?

Also, consensus = more likely to be true is another way of saying majority tends to be right. Is that your position? History does not show that the majority tends to be right. Great thinkers don't either. Do you acknowledge that SOME people are ahead of the majority?

Did you take into account Arouet, that the consensus of establishment scientists are NOT freethinkers who can say or think whatever they want? Even if Michio Kaku, the popularizer of science, came out and said something against the establishment, do you think the media would let him speak on their program anymore? When you have a job, you are not free to say whatever you want. What you say has to fall between certain narrow boundaries. You are aware of that right?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream scien

Postby ProfWag » 26 Dec 2010, 19:09

Scepcop wrote:Did you take into account Arouet, that the consensus of establishment scientists are NOT freethinkers who can say or think whatever they want? Even if Michio Kaku, the popularizer of science, came out and said something against the establishment, do you think the media would let him speak on their program anymore?

Sorry to butt in here, but yes, I do think the media would let him speak if he said something against the "establishment" (whatever the hell that is) as long as what he's saying has validity.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream scien

Postby ProfWag » 26 Dec 2010, 19:21

Mystery wrote:Well... I personally know a few people who work and do experiments with point-zero energy.

That's great there are people experimenting with zero-point energy, but it should be clear that as of today, no demonstration has been successful.

Mystery wrote:UFOs have been officially disclosed and we see that other species have a whole other level of technologies including levitation.

Could you please provide a reference where UFOs were officially disclosed? Thanks.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream scien

Postby Arouet » 26 Dec 2010, 20:05

Scepcop wrote:

Ok fair enough. This area is beyond both of us. But let's look at your reasoning above for a moment. You are saying that a consensus means a higher degree of confidence. Well what about the fact that most people believe in God or have experienced him deep down? Or the fact that around half the world's population at least, has experienced SOMETHING paranormal that does not seem attributable to coincidence?


What you're talking about is popular belief, not scientific consensus. And in fact, there is very little consensus about the things you've mentioned there. How much consensus is there in belief of God? Each individual has their own idea of what that God is, what its nature is, what it desires, what the rules are, etc. etc. You've got a vague agreement that there is some sort of deity out there, and then any consensus is lost. Same goes for the paranormal: everything is vague, undefined.

What I'm talking about is scientific consensus. From wiki:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation[2]. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.


As you can see, this is a very different scenario. We are talking about expert consensus based on rigourous scientific study. It is not just: everyone believes X.


Also, consensus = more likely to be true is another way of saying majority tends to be right. Is that your position? History does not show that the majority tends to be right. Great thinkers don't either. Do you acknowledge that SOME people are ahead of the majority?


Consensus in this context requires more than just a majority - its an overwhelming majority.

And I have specifically stated that some people are ahead of the majority,and that it will happen that one person comes out with something new that rocks a previous consensus. But all things being equal, one person standing is marked opposition to a scientific consensus means the odds are against them. Which is fine. Like I said, if they are right, they should be able to rigourously demontrate it, and the consensus will shift.

Did you take into account Arouet, that the consensus of establishment scientists are NOT freethinkers who can say or think whatever they want?


So you say. Scientists are some of the most creative and freethinking people around.

Even if Michio Kaku, the popularizer of science, came out and said something against the establishment, do you think the media would let him speak on their program anymore?


First, I'm not sure what that even means. I still don't know who the "establishment" is. Do you think Obama has an official position on quantum mechanics? I think the media will have him on if they think people will find him interesting and entertaining. Scientific rigour is not the media's forte.

When you have a job, you are not free to say whatever you want. What you say has to fall between certain narrow boundaries. You are aware of that right?


Sure, there can be boundaries, but what those are can vary widely.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream scien

Postby Scepcop » 26 Dec 2010, 22:18

Arouet, are you claiming that scientists can say whatever they want? Do you deny that if they question global warming, evolution, etc. that they will lose their job and funding? Power controls. We all know that. So why do you assume that scientists are freethinking people who are allowed to say whatever they want and only care about the truth, and do not care about consequences, such as losing their job, position, career, funding, etc.? Isn't that a major fallacy that you aren't considering?

I've already shown you a film where many science professors were kicked out of their positions for questioning evolution. So it's true. You assume that science is a freethinking world that only cares about truth and has no control from the power structure. Is that your claim?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream scien

Postby Arouet » 26 Dec 2010, 22:26

Scepcop wrote:Arouet, are you claiming that scientists can say whatever they want? Do you deny that if they question global warming, evolution, etc. that they will lose their job and funding? Power controls. We all know that. So why do you assume that scientists are freethinking people who are allowed to say whatever they want and only care about the truth, and do not care about consequences, such as losing their job, position, career, funding, etc.? Isn't that a major fallacy that you aren't considering?

I've already shown you a film where many science professors were kicked out of their positions for questioning evolution. So it's true. You assume that science is a freethinking world that only cares about truth and has no control from the power structure. Is that your claim?


Why do you practice such selective reading, Scepcop. Go back and look at my post and see what I actually wrote about that.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream scien

Postby Mystery » 27 Dec 2010, 01:15

ProfWag wrote:That's great there are people experimenting with zero-point energy, but it should be clear that as of today, no demonstration has been successful.

Daniel Pomerleau does a lot of demonstrations and he lives in my area. I have seen his demonstration and I have a friend doing a lot of researches on energies who is currently working closely with him. Scientists hate him and the Quebec Skeptics stole him some stuff.
Daniel Pomerleau Free Energy
Others are not able to reproduce what he does. He's a shaman showing that it's possible, not an inventor building it for others. Society isn't yet ready for this kind of technology.

ProfWag wrote:Could you please provide a reference where UFOs were officially disclosed? Thanks.

It was originally posted on this forum. I then wrote an article with a bunch of videos on the subject
Official UFO Disclosure
Transform From Within to Achieve Concrete Results
User avatar
Mystery
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 24 Dec 2010, 22:02

Re: Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream scien

Postby ProfWag » 27 Dec 2010, 04:33

Mystery wrote:Daniel Pomerleau does a lot of demonstrations and he lives in my area. I have seen his demonstration and I have a friend doing a lot of researches on energies who is currently working closely with him. Scientists hate him and the Quebec Skeptics stole him some stuff.
Daniel Pomerleau Free Energy
Others are not able to reproduce what he does. He's a shaman showing that it's possible, not an inventor building it for others. Society isn't yet ready for this kind of technology.

"Magic Trick
On March 26, 2008, Andrew Reeve wrote:

I really enjoy your Free Energy website, in fact I visit it every day without fail.

On the autistic inventor Daniel Pomerleau and his free energy coils, I must say it really comes off as a magic trick, especially because he supposedly uses his "mental powers" to kick start it. To me it sounded like someone else was probably feeding his machine trough a microwave beam. The simplest way would be by stripping out a magnetron out of a microwave oven and using it by always pointing it at his machine during one of his public demos. His machines have plenty of coils to pick up the beam and all it would take would be one that is built with an inductance close enough that it would resonate at the magnetron's frequency.

If you go the overunity.com forum at the following location: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=393.msg24788 you'll find that one poster by the name of wattsup, (reply #108) gives a description of what he witnessed at one of the demonstrations. Near the end of his description you'll this interesting tidbit:

"...One last thing. The hole event was video taped by a woman who was centrally installed on a higher table located in the back of the room. Her camera was pointed to Daniel filming the whole demo. I did not think to ask to view the video or inspect the video camera at the end of the demo and this, in my view, is the only piece left unturned.
"The only possibility of trickery could be the video camera was not really a video camera but a static gun or beam of some type that is concentrated and always aimed at or around Daniel. Is it possible that a video camera could be faked to emit some type of beam that hits the Plexiglass and that induces an electrical current therein. This is the only question I have unanswered. Maybe a microwave gun. I am saying this because they said they always video tape the events but they offer no video for sale. So what's the point..."
Also I found in the same Forum out that they were also charging people $20 each to see the demo. Whenever Daniel is pressed on releasing details of his machines (which he would have to do in order to secure patents) he claims that he would be killed by the powers that be.

I think it's because the whole thing is a magic trick and Daniel's guardians want to just keep raking in the money for as long as they can."
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Talk:Direc ... ergy_Coils

Just sayin'...
Mystery wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Could you please provide a reference where UFOs were officially disclosed? Thanks.

It was originally posted on this forum. I then wrote an article with a bunch of videos on the subject
Official UFO Disclosure

Yes, yes, yes, my apologies. When you mentioned UFOs were disclosed, I inadvertantly thought you were referring to extraterrestrial aliens from another planet having been disclosed to the general public. Instead, you were just referring to unidentified flying objects which, as we all know, are just that...unidentified and not necessarily extraterrestrial.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream scien

Postby Mystery » 27 Dec 2010, 05:20

ProfWag wrote:"...One last thing. The hole event was video taped by a woman who was centrally installed on a higher table located in the back of the room. Her camera was pointed to Daniel filming the whole demo. I did not think to ask to view the video or inspect the video camera at the end of the demo and this, in my view, is the only piece left unturned.
"The only possibility of trickery could be the video camera was not really a video camera but a static gun or beam of some type that is concentrated and always aimed at or around Daniel. Is it possible that a video camera could be faked to emit some type of beam that hits the Plexiglass and that induces an electrical current therein. This is the only question I have unanswered. Maybe a microwave gun. I am saying this because they said they always video tape the events but they offer no video for sale. So what's the point..."

I'm personally know people who are close to him so I know more about it. He does many other things that your mind couldn't possibly imagine.

The camera is there for a specific reason. He was jailed for a good part of his life because of the powers he has. He was considered "potentially dangerous" because he's autistic and they though he could be manipulated into doing dangerous things. Some people I know helped him get out of jail. They released him under very specific conditions of things he can do and things he cannot do. He CAN do such demonstrations to earn his life but there are many things he's not allowed to do by authorities. He does NOT want to go back in there so he video tapes everything so if there is any complaints he can prove what he did. He's very strict on having everything on tape.

He also has a GPS in his mind. If he drives with you, he'll tell you to turn in all kinds of tiny roads to get to any known or unknown destination in the shortest possible way without hitting any traffic or red lights. And that's not the only thing he can do. That guy is an exception though. He's connected to other dimensions that are beyond the laws of physics. That's not relevant to most of our lives beyond showing what is possible.

What I find more promising is Nassim Haramein who has equations to make sense out of it and another guy I met who has a technology to program the quantum field behind matter to alter the way physical matter behaves. That guy made a holographic patch that you'd put next to your gas tank to considerably reduce fuel consumption (which doesn't make any logical sense). He alters the way physical matter behaves. There's another guy I met who has free energy technology. My friend who works with Daniel Pomerleau is also in contact with another inventor who has free energy and they plan to install it soon for a project.

Lots of people are now coming up with all kind of technologies.
Transform From Within to Achieve Concrete Results
User avatar
Mystery
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 24 Dec 2010, 22:02

Re: Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream scien

Postby Mystery » 27 Dec 2010, 07:14

We're moving away from the main topic with all this.

The original thread is about what is *confirmed* by scientists.

This provides a solid foundation to understand the world and build technologies.

The more advanced and esoteric stuff is a whole other topic.
Transform From Within to Achieve Concrete Results
User avatar
Mystery
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 24 Dec 2010, 22:02

Re: Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream scien

Postby ProfWag » 27 Dec 2010, 09:27

Mystery wrote:We're moving away from the main topic with all this.

The original thread is about what is *confirmed* by scientists.

This provides a solid foundation to understand the world and build technologies.

The more advanced and esoteric stuff is a whole other topic.

And my input to answer the question about what is "confirmed" by scientists, my input would be "not very much in the grand scheme of things." Science is changing al the time, thankfully, and what they may have "confirmed in the past often times is found to not be as confirmed as they once thought. Personally, I hope that free energy becomes possible someday, but as of today, there does not appear to be any valid evidence for it. I'm not doubting your honesty in what you've seen Daniel and others do, I'm just saying that it's acceptance by mainstream science would revolutionize the world as we see it today and if someone has it who is not wanting others to see it, then that is a travesty indeed.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream scien

Postby Scepcop » 29 Dec 2010, 17:52

Here is a nice promo video for a Nassim event.



Btw, Nassim won an award for Best Physics Paper. That's really something. You skeptics should humble yourself and try to learn from others.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream scien

Postby Arouet » 29 Dec 2010, 20:02

Scepcop wrote:You skeptics should humble yourself and try to learn from others.


Ugh, have you read even one word that we have written here? It is not for us to figure out if Haramein's hypotheses are correct. We have no expertise in physics. If the physics community embraces his views, I have no problem with that. Why would I? But I'm not qualified to express an opinion on it. I'm certainly not going to draw any conclusions about his paper being presented at a single conference. I don't know why you would either.

Anyone who successfully presents a unified theory is going to get a lot of attention, and maybe even a Nobel. So sit back and let's see what hapens, let it work its way through the physics community. If it has wings, it'll fly. If not, it'll fall.

Humble enough for 'ya?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream scien

Postby ProfWag » 29 Dec 2010, 21:51

Scepcop wrote:Btw, Nassim won an award for Best Physics Paper. That's really something. You skeptics should humble yourself and try to learn from others.

Scepcop, I challenge you to post the full story about his "award for Best Physics Paper." I know what it is, but it would be nice for you to do a quick little research and tell us all what his "award" really was and THEN tell us that his award was "really something."
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream scien

Postby chosenbygrace » 24 Aug 2011, 05:18

[quote="Arouet]it means that its the best we have under current circumstances.[/quote]

You're being bigoted when you say that, because Mainstreamers who say that say that while pretending that creationists and saved Christians don't count as scientists or are poor scientists, which is bigotry being that it's said contrary to the evidence. Plus, it wouldn't even be right for saved Christians etc. to say, because concensus NEVER even hints at truth. NEVER. The only thing a concensus is evidence for is that there's a consensus on something, however large or small the consensus is. It's as bad as saying, "Well the more strongly I feel about something the better I know it's probably true," how so? Mainstreamer's are always confused over how to determine truth and tripping over themselves on that subject. You're statement and Wikipedia is a good example. Wikipedia simultaneously claims it's not about truth, yet all over that wacky propagandiapedia they cite that there's a concensus as evidence of something being true, especially against Christians. They do it with global warming, the Big Bang, Relativity, evolution and their claim that the part of the Bible before King Solomon's time is myth. You can determine what is true through reason and your physical senses and lesser so, your heart, a corrupt and unreliable tool, and have FAITH that you are right, faith, because we aren't perfect in knowledge and wisdom and prone to deception. Even when there is a consensus in judgement in a court by a group of judges, that doesn't mean a thing is true; if they are moral judges whose senses work, and they had sufficient evidence necessary for making a good judgment on a case, and there was no conflict of interest, and they have demonstrated being trustworhy their whole lives, then at best you can have faith they made a JUST and correct decision, but not necessarily correct or ultimately just, because they may have been lied to or misunderstood something. Judges in highly populated cities are under pressure to get a case done quickly, so they don't, unfortunately, always or usually spend their time examing the trustworthiness of a witness unless another witness is called to point out the person is known for lying.
User avatar
chosenbygrace
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 24 Aug 2011, 05:00

PreviousNext

Return to Metaphysics / Quantum Physics / Nature of Reality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron