Using energy from crystals and pyramids to increase plant success
- Thread starter StoopidLungs
- Start date
Ok.. thats your take on it.. Have you disproven the math? As far as I know.. Haramein is the only person to ever live that has completed a unified theory with verfiable math that actually adds up.. and works on all levels of quantum theory. Im tired of argueing with you about all this stupid shit that has nothing do with the fact that crystals help plants... So what if you can twist my words around.. big deal dude.. You keep pointing at shit that makes no sense.. you keep twisting my words around to make me look like an idiot (all the while not answering the question at hand). and for what.. to try and piss me off? To try and discredit the factual information that you cant disprove?? The simple fact of the matter is physics has changed DRASTICALLY in the last decade... Your clearly not on top of the changes.. and thats cool with me.. But just because you dont understand, or fail to comprehend how to answer a simple question is not my fault! I have provided mathematical proof that crystals help plants... You keep slinging mud.. Hopefully the people that actually do believe in truthful science can find some answers here... OR maybe you can show me the error in the math.. Either way.. your wrong.. and I have proven it.. so if im wrong PROVE IT! All the mud in the world cant cover up proof bud.. wheres your proof?? Common now.. Ive been asking for like 5 pages! There must be some PROOF that the facts I have givin are wrong?? Or..... maybe you need to come to grip with the fact that you could be WRONG for once?
Let me help you out with this... Do you remember how to check math? As in.. if you have an equation like 2+2=4 and you wanted to check to see if your right.. you would reverse the operation and get 4-2=2.. this reverse operation is called CHECKING YOUR MATH.. and its the BIGGEST problem a physicist will face when coming up with a theory... Haramein has determined the energy denisty of the vacuume, the density of the universe, and the density of each single proton in existence.. He then cross references this information between all 3 levels of existence INCLUDING non existence (Microscopic, Macroscopic, and the Vacuume). All of the numbers add up.. forwards.. backwards.. sideways.. all the way across quantum theory... You saying it holds no relevance.. is like me saying 2+2=5 and expecting YOU to just take my word for it... Show me some proof bud.. thats all Im asking for.. if your so sure of yourself it should be easy to find without having to twist my words around some more...
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
You presented no math to disprove. I commented on your stupid criticism of the 'general scientific community' and your incorrect characterizations of only testing in isolated systems. Now the only thing you seem to be doing is changing the subject and accuse me of twisting your words, in spite of the fact that I'm quoting you directly. Now you are saying physics has changed drastically yet it still doesn't support you fringe theories. When you say something stupidly wrong, don't blame me for slinging mud when all I do is point it out. You want me to check math, then present something coherent. You want your hypothesis about the power of crystals, then present something that has adequate controls and documentation. Just making claims that you did something doesn't make it true. Anyone can come on here and say they performed tests and found something works for growing plants, it's quite another thing to demonstrate it. Asking someone to disprove something you did without presenting the all of the data in a manner that can be examined is just plain ridiculous and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of scientific peer review. I can't review, let alone comment on an experimental study that doesn't exist in a format I can replicate (then attacking people for not having done the same tests as you is just more grandstanding stupidity). In fact, I never once made mention of your testing or criticized your conclusions about crystals, I made a specific comment about your generalizing isolated systems to all of science. Nor did I mention anything about Hararmein. You are getting me confused with another poster. You should be careful as to who you speak to about scientific knowledge or lack thereof. I probably read and critique more scientific papers in a month than you have read in a lifetime.
Figong
Well-Known Member
Well said... you're arguing with something that's not a scientific law - why isn't it a law? That question sort of answers it self, I do believe. I can make up math where numbers fit too, but since there is no standardization or real acknowledgement or proof (see: Law) it's all heresay anyway. Volley, your turn on how this 'theory' is proven, yet it's not a law.
This theory was published in 2011, it generally takes a few years for other physicists to test the theory before it becomes feasible to call it a law.. And Im sorry I dont have the time to spend 2 hours writing out feild equations in this thread for you to check out... I have however.. provided a video of Nassim Haramein laying out these caluculations in laymans terms. If you would actually watch the video.. you would see the math.. you would see that it works.. and you would see that your WRONG... but.. I guess 2 hours of your time to learn something about the universe is just too much to ask.... Afterall.. Ive been asking for over a week now! Here is the math.. yet again.. Come proove me wrong please! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1JDMToJDe0
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
why the fuck are you linking a youtube video if he's published it?
published means he's had a paper accepted by a journal and it will be there for us to read you shouldnt have to transcribe anything
why dont you go find this 2011 papaer for us and link it back here
E=MC2 is a theory... and yet most of the physical world we live in is based on this calculation.. yet it is used EVERYWHERE even though it has never been proven... Why would sooooo many people spend soooooo many years on something that is a theory? Maybe it makes sense.. but doesnt add up? Maybe the fact it doesnt add up is whats holding us back? Haramein is the first person in history to make this equation add up.. So.. even though there is no PROOF that relativity is factual.. why do you keep siting it as proof that Im wrong? Nassims math works.. plain and simple.. and if you would do a little bit of research instead of trolling every word I say.. you might actually learn something!
I figured you would be more likely to watch a 2 hour laymans video.. than read a 21 page paper... But.. ask and you shall recieve! http://theresonanceproject.org/pdf/scalinglaw_paper.pdf
Seems like the more I search.. the more people I find backing nassim up with more FACTS!! http://blog.icresource.com/2009/01/17/harameins-universal-model-receives-one-of-its-largest-confirmations-the-resonance-project/
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...drokk it
Figong
Well-Known Member
Good point, however.. it's tied to 3 laws directly.E=MC2 is an equation not a law.
Judge Dredd is the Law.
PetFlora
Well-Known Member
[h=1]NEW! Mehran Keshe: How World Peace can be a byproduct of Keshe Technology [/h]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piT7Vgc9sCw&feature=em-uploademail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piT7Vgc9sCw&feature=em-uploademail
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
why do these "visionaries" with "incredible new technology" never have a working model to show?
one would think if he had crated a "plasma nuclear reactor" he could build one in the glorious islamic republic of iran, and PROVE that it works.
in B4 "thats why the israelis and the US are bombing their nuclear facilities"
one would think if he had crated a "plasma nuclear reactor" he could build one in the glorious islamic republic of iran, and PROVE that it works.
in B4 "thats why the israelis and the US are bombing their nuclear facilities"