Nassim Haramein answers his critics with respect and logic
In his point #1, the first and second paragraph clearly attempt to discredit the validity of the CASYS’09 Conference because of the gentleman’s unfamiliarity with this event and insinuates that the postings on my website mislead people to believe that it was an award given for all of physics where it is made clear that the award was given to The Schwarzschild Proton paper for the section of the CASYS’09 Conference in the field of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation” which took place at the University of Liege in Belgium. http://www2.ulg.ac.be/mathgen/CHAOS/
Furthermore, it is clear that the gentleman didn’t take the time to go and investigate the program timetable to examine the other papers that my paper was competing against as he didn’t seem to know how many were submitted in this particular section. The gentleman is correct in asserting that not so many papers would be found there (approximately 20) as not many people in this world have either the capacity to work at this level, or the leisure to find the time to do in depth investigation of extremely difficult problems that were found insurmountable by some of the greatest thinkers in our history.
The papers that were submitted this year were of very high quality from researchers from a wide international community and very reputable institutions. This is nothing unusual for the CASYS Conference physics section, as previous years have seen Nobel Prize Laureates participate, such as in CASYS’07 where I presented as well. As such, I was quite surprised to find my paper winning the Best Paper Award as it was competing against veteran physicists and researchers, including papers from the director of the conference himself. How much did the selection committee know about physics? I don’t know. However, the quality of the physics papers that have been submitted certainly demands that the reviewers have some fairly advanced understanding of physics to be able to even comprehend any of it. It wasn’t the Nobel Prize, however, I wonder how many prizes the gentleman has won in physics?
It seems like I can’t even get the gentleman’s real name or find any of his credentials to be able to ascertain his capacity to review my work. As such, since he gave himself the name Bob-a-thon I shall call him Dr. Bob-a-thon, which, interestingly, I found to have a very disturbing definition in the urban dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=b.+o : “b.o.b.-a-thon: It may be that the gentleman had not done a full investigation before jumping to conclusions and choosing this pseudonym.
In point #2, the gentleman suggests that my Schwarzschild Proton paper has no merit as such, and supports his argument using three comments. I will address them one by one (for a complete rebuttal of his technical criticisms of the Schwarzschild proton, read http://theresonanceproject.org/sp_manifesto.html).
a) “His overall argument is circular”
This assertion is quite remarkable as The Schwarzschild Proton, while proposing a unification view, attempts to resolve a very significant circular argument found in the standard model. Almost a century ago, when it was determined that there seemed to be a highly charged nucleon at the center of atoms that contained most of their mass and that this entity was composed of particles that somehow must have been held together against their electrostatic charge (Coulomb repulsion), the scientific community at large adopted the concept of some mysterious strong force plucked out of thin air that happened to be in the correct proportion to produce a confinement necessary for proton to proton interaction. Later on it was found that the proton seemed to have internal structures called quarks and since those are confined in an even much smaller space, the color force was elaborated and made to be infinitely strong. Now the strong force at the proton scale was said to be only a remnant of the all-powerful color force of infinite nature mediated by gluons. Nowhere in the standard model is there given an argument for the source of energy that would be necessary to produce a force of infinite nature –that is, the strongest force in the Universe.
Ironically, this is a perfect example of circular thinking. One finds an error in his or her current physical model that doesn’t agree with experiment or observation, then proceeds to invent a new kind of force or even a new kind of matter (in the case of the dark matter/dark energy allegories, see below) then gives this new invention exactly the characteristics necessary to make the initial model work. Then the researcher asserts that the new quantity is confirmed, since it is predicted by the initial model which otherwise fails.
In order for the argument of the standard model to not be circular, a mechanism for the production of an infinite confining force would have had to be given, and this is exactly what The Schwarzschild Proton does. It does so by postulating a certain amount of coherent and polarized structure in the available vacuum fluctuations present at the quantum scale (known to produce foam-like structures in the spacetime manifold, according to the standard model) and contributing to high curvature near or at the horizon. This is not addressed or elaborated on in The Schwarzschild Proton paper, although it is better referenced in the final copy for publication which is not available on the internet yet. However, my earlier papers Collective Coherent Oscillation Plasma Modes In Surrounding Media of Black Holes and Vacuum Structure – Quantum Processes with Considerations of Spacetime Torque and Coriolis Forces and Spinors, Twistors, Quaternions, and the “Spacetime” Torus Topology treated this very issue and showed that soliton-like structures and acoustic plasma solutions found in the neighborhood of horizons demand a certain amount of coherent structure in the vacuum at the quantum level. Therefore, the Schwarzschild paper is not a stand-alone paper, but a continuation of investigation of a certain approach to the structure of spacetime which involves distortions due to torque and Coriolis effect which may produce discreteness at the quantum level resolving the division between the relativistic world and the quantum world. This approach has been successful in predicting many astrophysical phenomenons, including the existence of black holes prior to galactic formation (http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2009/bhbulge/). The following quote is one example from The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein’s Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.
“In this section we have shown that we can modify Einstein’s field equations and the Kerr-Newman solution in order to accommodate torque and the Coriolis forces, which we term the Haramein-Rauscher solution. Since Einstein’s field equations obey the Laplace-Poisson condition, the torquing of spacetime may be the result of the vacuum gradient density in the presence of matter-energy. Modification of the field equations makes it possible to include the torque terms and hence generate more realistic solutions. These solutions more comprehensively describe the dynamical rotational structures of galaxies, novae, supernovae, and other astrophysical structures which in this case are driven by a spacetime torque. Hence, with the inclusion of torque and Coriolis effects in Einstein’s field equations, the spacetime manifold correlates well with the observable mechanisms of black holes, galactic topology, supernova formation, stellar plasma dynamics and planetary science such as ring formation and the Coriolis structure of atmospheric dynamics. This may lead to a model where the driving torque and the dynamical Coriolis forces of the spacetime manifold topology are responsible for the observed early formation of mature spiral galaxies . Further, our model is consistent with galactic structures, the super-massive black hole at their centers, as well as polar jets, accretion disks, spiral arms and galactic halo formations.”
[Reference 18. Robert G. Abraham et al., “The Gemini Deep Deep Survey.I. Introduction to the Survey,” Catalogs, and Composite Spectra, AJ. 127, 2455.]
The impetus for the Schwarzschild Proton paper was merely to show that when a proton is treated as a mini black hole, its interactive behavior actually predicts well (considering a first order approximation since a full tensor analysis would need to be included using the Kerr-Newman metric and eventually the Haramein-Rauscher solution) the gamma emission, the interaction time and the so-called “anomalous magnetic moment” of the proton – which now has been given a source through the polarized vacuum structure.