Only a small percentage of readers are interested in the truth.
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. 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. 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?
|Frederick Soddy – Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1921||Types of war War must entail some degree of confrontation using weapons and other military technology and equipment by armed forces employing military tactics and operational art within a broad military strategy subject to military logistics.|
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?Opposing Viewpoints of Capital Punishment - “Death penalty is a deterrent,” by George E.
Pataki and “The Death Penalty Should Not Be Abolished,” by David B. Muhlhausen are two articles that support capital punishment as a deterrent of crime. "He Who Does Not Remember History Is Condemned To Repeat It" - Georges Santayana "Power tends to Corrupt, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" - Lord Acton "Liberty Is The Only Thing You Cannot Have Unless You Are Willing To Give It To Others" - William Allen White.
It seems that the best way to grow and thrive in this existence is to place oneself squarely upon and between an energy gradient and some waste sinks.
The Age of Reason of the 17th Century and the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th Century (very roughly speaking), along with the advances in science, the growth of religious tolerance and the rise of liberalism which went with them, mark the real beginnings of modern philosophy.
In large part, the. Anarchy is the condition of a society, entity, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy. The word originally meant leaderlessness, but in Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his treatise What Is Property?
to refer to a new political philosophy: anarchism, which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary . The Age of Reason of the 17th Century and the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th Century (very roughly speaking), along with the advances in science, the growth of religious tolerance and the rise of liberalism which went with them, mark the real beginnings of modern philosophy.
In large part, the.