Thesis presentaion

.

Thesis presentaion

The paper is full of assertions that conflict with what we know about protons and black holes. You can check out my analysis of that paper here if you want — I'm very open to challenges if you feel I've made any errors or false assumptions. I think it's pretty watertight.

Thesis presentaion

The force between protons Please bear with me on this one, it's nothing complicated. Haramein's calculation of the force that holds two protons together in a nucleus, using his theory, gives a force of 7.

To see why this is silly, all you need to do is look at what a dyne is, and try to find something comparable. Haramein's result is more than a million million million million times bigger than either of these forces!

How can this be the force holding protons together? You can separate protons from a nucleus by tapping them with a tiny electron in a small accelerator.

The issue here is not so much that he got something wrong, but that he is capable of presenting a theory in all seriousness that gives results that are so far from reality without even stopping to notice. If you're trying to present a theory that's supposed to represent reality, surely you would ensure that you a understand what your answers mean, and b take every opportunity to compare them with the real world?

This isn't the only example — There are many others. He also tells us that every atom of our body contains protons which have a mass of million tonnes each.

Thesis presentaion

That ought to raise a few very heavy eyebrows too. Introducing the theory to the world: He's literally mathematically proved it! Below is a clip in which Haramein introduces The Schwarzschild Proton theory at a "free energy" conference in He goes on to say that he has some "new material which solves the equation that proves — literally, mathematically proves — that every single atom you're made of is a mini black hole.

He does make some vague claims in it, but nowhere does he even mention 'proving' anything whatsoever. So why is he saying these things? Is he blind enough to actually believe he's proved something, or is he deliberately misleading?

If you skip to 6: But what he says next explains why he wants to so badly: If you have results, you don't need to fabricate an equation for them — just present the results. If you don't have results and he doesn'twhy would making something up that has equations in it make it any better?

Science doesn't — will never and should never — work by someone having a 'vision' which he has convinced himself is the truth, and then trying to force some equations to fit the fantasy without any respect for evidence or for reasoning.

Especially if in the meantime they go around claiming they've already proved it. Equations aren't a means of rhetoric.

At least they're not in any decent society. In some messed-up world where people are encouraged to worship the equation despite not understanding what it means or what it implies, perhaps they are becoming a means of rhetoric. If the aim is to influence scientists, it's not very clever.

I encourage you to watch the whole video, to check that I'm not taking these statements out of context. He's a good speaker, isn't he. Good at emotionally charging what he says with promises of a magic perfect future, so that you actually really want to ignore any doubts you might have, and just believe it all.

Misunderstanding basic physics Haramein can often be seen in video presentations misunderstanding some basic ideas in physics so naively that it's amazing nobody in the audience said anything.

The "first law of physics" Here's one. It's from his 8-hour presentation at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library in Here 's a good place to learn about it perfect if you're under the age of ten. Of course not everybody knows or cares about Newton's laws of motion — but remember this man claims to be a world-leading physicist.

Indeed, in this clip he gloats about how his "first law of physics" insight stopped all the other physicists in the room in their tracks I can't help feeling that if they had "blank look on their faces" it might not have been for the reason he's suggesting.

This law explicitly only applies to forces on a pair of interacting objects.Transforming media into collaborative spaces with video, voice, and text commenting. Jun 08,  · Science doesn't – will never and should never – work by someone having a 'vision' which he has convinced himself is the truth, and then trying to force some equations to fit the fantasy without any respect for evidence or for plombier-nemours.comally if in the meantime they go around claiming they've already proved it.

Equations aren't a . Jun 08,  · Science doesn't – will never and should never – work by someone having a 'vision' which he has convinced himself is the truth, and then trying to force some equations to fit the fantasy without any respect for evidence or for plombier-nemours.comally if in the meantime they go around claiming they've already proved it.

Equations aren't a means of rhetoric. Please make your selection below: Field of Practice. Year of the award: Awarded thesis: Conference number held: Year of presentaion: Thesis number: Name of awardees: Title of thesis: 28th () 25th: D Takatomo Enoki, Yohtaro Umeda and Yasunobu Ishii NTT LSI Laboratories.

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University The paper is full of assertions that conflict with what we know about protons and black holes. To see why this is silly, all you need to do is look at what a dyne is, and try to find something comparable.
The 1997 Fire

.

Transforming media into collaborative spaces with video, voice, and text commenting.

Up: What's so misleading about Nassim Haramein?