In case you want to see how incapable of giving any actual information about this "theory" its supporters are, read this exchange:

http://www.np.reddit.com/r/holofractal/comments/2hvtrq/in_2012_nassim_haramein_using_math_precisely/ckwzmu5

In case you want to see Nassim reply to every single point BobAThon raises, see:

http://www.reddit.com/r/holofractal/comments/2klr4u/nassims_response_to_the_famed_bobathon/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

The blanket dismissals with no reasoning are interesting.

Do you have a link to reviews by his peers?

Ah Peer-Review. The Holy Grail.....

http://www.ajronline.org/doi/abs/10.2214/ajr.181.5.1811422b

Why did you feel the need to post this?

As the link shows, peer review does not make something instantly credible. A group of like minded people (peers) often base their conclusions on common assumptions which can be wrong. Ever wonder why peer reviewed studies come out that say "eggs will kill you" then a few years later there is another study "eggs are great for you" then a few years later "eggs will kill you".

Peer review is the process of analyzing the data collection and the conclusions drawn from them. Do not chew up and swallow something because it has passed peer review, as the link shows, it is easily manipulated.

Ever wonder why peer reviewed studies come out that say "eggs will kill you" then a few years later there is another study "eggs are great for you" then a few years later "eggs will kill you".

That's the media saying it. The papers usually make it clear what the findings actually are.

But I get what you're saying: If something is peer reviewed, don't take it as gospel. Which I don't do. However, the OP's linked stuffed isn't peer reviewed by anyone. So...

http://sciencedomain.org/review-history.php?iid=224&id=4&aid=1298

Is that an open journal?

There are 4 reviews there.

By anonymous people. The only ones that aren't "This should be published" call out the paper for being inconclusive and horribly-executed.

No peer review with actual names attached? Suspicious!

I urge you to look into it, put the pressure on it. Eventually this will be recognized as unification, and it's beautiful.

Eh. Too many misinterpretations and arbitrary values. Let me know if someone vindicates his work.

So let me get this straight. You won't even give it a look until someone you have never met says it is true? As much as I hate this term, you understand that is the epitome of the word sheep?

I've actually already read the material. It's pseudoscience, which is why the creator has yet to submit it to peer review and why the sub dedicated to praising it has no scientists in it.

There....you got in another dismissal. Now, do you care to point out what misinterpretations and arbitrary values you would be referring to? Or are you just gonna say pseudoscience and call it a day?

Well he claims that each point on the surface of a hologram contains the entire information for the image. He then proceeds to not cite anything to support that different interpretation.

His equations and their output are his citation. The idea is that the math makes sense in all situation vs the current mainstream (incomplete)model needing a load of exemptions. Do you have a specific problem with his math that you would like to discuss?

His equations and their output are his citation.

I'm not sure if you're serious or not.

Oh, I forgot, you need someone who you don't know to write their opinion on it. You're unable look at it for yourself and deduce if there are logical missteps. Someone has to be the first to give it a shot - why not you? Please, send me a msg if you find any problems with his math.

It's not his math that's a problem; it's his concepts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

More specifically

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Black_hole_information_paradox

What concept is not understood?

The holographic principal. As I said earlier, "he claims that each point on the surface of a hologram contains the entire information for the image".

No.

He claims the proton contains the mass information for all protons. It is the singularity of space. Each proton derives it's mass from 1/(number of protons in universe) out of the holographic mass.

This is different from the generalized holographic principle equation he uses to deduces mass, which is very well understood. The above is simply a logical deduction from this.

Why the proton?

Why is the proton the fundamental holographic length of a universe our size?

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

It's too bad there aren't any citations :/

Are you fucking kidding me?

Google works, you know

A fundamental scale of mass for black holes from the cosmological constant

Thermodynamic reflection of particles by Schwarzschild black holes

The minimum mass of a black hole that is capable of accretion in a universe with a cosmological constant

Thanks for fixing the links! They're broken trying to get them from your post, btw.

The holographic principle as a solution to the black hole information paradox states that the total mass/information of the volume can be fully represented on the surface. This is well understood.

Like what?

Being published in a reputable journal would be a start. It'd be nice to see a peer review by someone we can confirm is a peer.

I meant the arbitrary values.

Most physicists have an instant dismissal of this, first because he is not phd sanctioned (he has no degree, he learned all of physics in his van) and because of the major modification to Einsteins field equations, adding in torsion to the fabric of space itself.

So it makes sense that he probably isn't aware that his ideas aren't supported by experimentation.

However, they are.

The first time Nassim did his calculations and released his paper, he started with two values. The current accepted proton radius, and current accepted proton rest mass.

His first calculated the rest mass by taking the accepted proton radius, and got extremely close to the CODATA rest mass.

He also took the CODATA rest mass (slightly different from his derived) and calculated what the radius should be.

It turns out that that radius has recently been confirmed by a muonic hydrogen proton accelerator experiment, and comes with .00012% of the radius.

When he takes the new radius, and plugs it into his equations, he comes even closer to the accepted rest mass.

E.g he made a hypothesis (holographic mass) made a prediction (charge radius) and had it confirmed by experimentation which came within one standard deviation (or the scientific margin of error in experimentation)

Uh this is bunk. This shows nothing and doesn't even come close reconciling physics. Anyone who could would be world famous. He would be the next Einstein.

But not submitting scientific research for any peer review or criticism is how you know it's right!

Yep. Is that your reasoning for dismissal though?

Here's the example of quantum gravity, the simplest you'll ever see it.

Already present in modern physics, and elaborated upon in the last module, the Holographic Principle is defined as the capacity for information storage on the surface of the event horizon of a black hole, where one “bit” of information is equal to one Planck area, which defines the entropy (heat or temperature) of the black hole.

Haramein generalized this principle by first redefining the Planck area bit (or pixel) as a Planck Spherical Unit (PSU) of volume (a quantum voxel), since it is more plausible that the Universe tiles with spherical units rather than with two-dimensional squares, or with three-dimensional cubes for that matter. (Pun intended)

He further demonstrates that there is a simple and fundamental relationship between the information content, in terms of PSUs inside the volume of a black hole, and the PSU information on the surface event horizon, giving a ratio that when multiplied by the Planck mass (the energy of that ratio), generates the exact mass-energy of the black hole. The Schwarzschild solution to Einstein’s field equations gives the exact same answer for the mass of a black hole, however, in the case of Haramein’s generalized holographic solution using quantum voxels we have a quantized gravitational solution (in fine-grained or discrete quantities). Since we find the granularity of spacetime to be a Planck, a quantum object, we have quantum gravity as opposed to the smooth surface of Einstein’s curvature. This reconciles quantum mechanics with General Relativity by demonstrating that the source of gravitation, which is currently unknown in standard theory (the curvature of spacetime describes the mechanics but does not identify what spacetime is made of), is the electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations of the quantum information network.

Example

The relationship between the information content inside the volume of a black hole and the information on the surface event horizon is considered for the case of the well-known black hole Cygnus X-1.

The quantity of Planck spherical oscillators within the interior volume of the black hole was calculated as

R = Volume of black hole / Volume of PSU = 2.96 x 10¹¹⁸

These PSUs, or Planck voxels, tile along the spherical surface horizon of the black hole as well, where the ratio of the information bit to the spherical surface is calculated as:

n = A / A (lc) = 3.83 x 10⁷⁹

where A is the spherical surface horizon of the black hole and Alc is the area of the PSU equatorial disc. Therefore, now we have found the number of Planck Spherical Units in the volume and on the surface η (eta) of the black hole.

In these calculations the radius of the black hole was taken as r=25km. The resulting value for the holographic mass is then,

mh = R/n (ml) = 1.68 x 10³⁴ g

where ml is the Planck mass which is multiplied by the volume-to-surface ratio η/R to get the mass of the black hole, which is exactly equal to the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein’s field equation for a black hole of this particular size.

It should be noted that the most recent observational mass determination for Cygnus X-1 is 2.95 x 10³⁴ g with a corresponding Schwarzschild radius of r=43km.1 Of course, the holographic solution generates the correct answer as well, as it is equivalent to the Schwarzschild solution.

This can also be done at the hadron scale to deduce a holographic mass of the proton and a rest mass when distributed to all protons.

Hadron/Proton

In order to achieve a quantum scale solution for gravity, Haramein eventually realized that the volume-to-surface ratio of “Plancks” (as we might call the Planck Spherical Units) in his holographic cosmological (large scale) gravitational solution (which we covered in the previous topic) must be inverted at the quantum scale, so that the surface information content is divided by the amount of Planck information within the volume (in terms of PSUs) to define the standard mass of the proton. The result in his first order approximation is extremely compelling. Indeed, the surface-to-volume Planck ratio, when multiplied by the Planck mass to get the energy of the ratio, generates a mass for the proton:

2 n/R m(l) = 1.603498 x 10^-24 g - the proven standard mass

That makes so many assumptions about what is equivalent goes no justification for "psu". When talking about black holes he is just taking random values from the back hole and just mixing them for no reason. This is outside of my field but too many false assumptions are made.

Can you point to a false assumption? It should be easy if there are "too many".

That you can express it as volume. Also that the event horizon and black hole have that relationship.

That you can express it as volume.

The PSU? Black Holes? Would you please clarify a bit.

Also that the event horizon and black hole have that relationship.

Regardless of how he came to that ratio, if it is in front you, computing the same value as the Schwarschild solution is it a false assumption?

The psu. It easily can be. You can get the right answer with the wrong equation.

Sure. Can you easily get the right answer to both Cygnus X-1 (10³⁴ grams) and the proton (10^-24 grams) with a wrong equation?

Also, he derives the cosmological constant (the dark energy energy accelerating the universe), the source for the limit on the speed of light, the strong force, the strong force interaction time, among many others outlined in the top of this post.

Think about how large these numbers are, and how close this gets to the exact masses.

The PSU is very simple. It is a sphere based on the planck length, a physics constant.

Its not too hard to just play with the numbers. There is a reason it hasn't been accepted amd is recognized as pseudoscience

Play with numbers?

Now I don't know if you're trolling.

It would be WAY crazier to come up with a framework, implement that model with known physics values, derive the masses of both a black hole and the proton using said framework, and to do it by accident, than it would be to actually write a unified field theory.

These numbers are ENORMOUS.

Like this

.000000000000000000000000x grams for the proton

and

00000000000000000000000000000000x grams for the black hole.

This is a statistical IMPOSSIBILITY

Then why hasn't he revolutionized physics?

This is a circular argument.

If this was right, it would revolutionize physics. It hasn't, so it's not right.

Just wait. It's brand new. You have no logical argument.

Here's the justification for the PSU:

By the way, does a planck cube make sense to you as something the universe would do? It's based on the planck length.

In order to better represent the natural systems of harmonic oscillators we initiate our calculation by defining a Planck spherical unit (PSU) oscillator of the Planck mass with a spherical volume V and a planck length diameter with a radius of 1.616199 x 10^-33 cm.

And what random values? It's literally the quantization of the mass of the black hole with plancks- deriving the mass. Not exactly random.

If it was random, do you believe he would be able to deduce the mass of Cygnus X-1 and the proton with the same equation?

I would like to see this published in scientific journal for peer review.

Me too.

Have you posted this to /r/Physics or /r/mathematics?

/r/askphysics

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/2m4xsa/so_theres_a_unification_textbook_floating_around/

Note that out of all the blatant dismissal, there is one guy who actually has a scientific discussion with me, I urge you to read it to completion. E.g. this is not easily dismissable.

Ouch they really tear you apart there. I knew psu's made no sense and it was wrong to assume it. They confirmed much of my suspicions. It's really fishy that he changes the equation between calculations. That's definitely not the way to do things. Also his idea of protons having inner black holes solves nothing and just is a further complication that isn't supported at all. He makes so.many incorrect assumptions as I first thought.

You totally, totally do not understand the theory if you say

Also his idea of protons having inner black holes solves nothing and just is a further complication that isn't supported at all

Seriously, I shouldn't even bother debating you if you don't understand the implications of ridding the strong force to replace it with space-curvature. This is the holy grail of physics my friend

Ouch they really tear you apart there.

Where is that?

It's really fishy that he changes the equation between calculations.

This is 100% explained.

“Let’s restate these calculations in simple terms: when calculating the gravity of a cosmological black hole, we take its total volume of mass-energy and divide that by its surface (charge radius or event horizon), which tells us how much of an effect the inside information of the object (a relative amount) has on the outside spacetime (the rest of the universe), which is defined as its gravity.

When calculating the gravity (or mass) of a proton,we invert this and take the outside information on the surface that we perceive (the relative amount), and divide it into the inside volume (the universal or holographic amount). The proton has the special property of having an internal vacuum fluctuation mass-energy equal to the mass of the visible Universe, therefore we’re taking our perceived view of a single instance of a proton by the size of its charge radius in Plancks, and dividing it into the internal volume in Plancks (or Universal mass-energy) in order to understand its individual mass-energy or gravity in relationship to all other protons in the universe.”

This is the half-assed critiques of his theory that don't even begin to evaluate it within his framework (A HOLOGRAPHIC ENCODING OF INFORMATION).

Note that out of all the blatant dismissal, there is one guy who actually has a scientific discussion with me, I urge you to read it to completion.

Not sure why you're pulling the victimization card here, seeing that I've found several long threads in the last month where someone addresses you head on for quite a while (u/stembruh, u/mofo69extreme, u/mahatmagandalf, u/bobathon, others.)

In several of these threads, they engage you, meaningfully, and ask for very specific formulas/questions/etc, and in almost every single one you don't address them.

Now I know you're thinking that they're doing the same exact thing, but truly honestly, they are not dodging your questions in the same way you are theirs. People who read these threads see two people arguing -- one person trying to discuss claims one point at a time, trying to narrow the focus to one formula/graph and keep the conversation on that, and another who is just throwing copy/pasted terms and links to graphs, and dodging very direct remarks.

Now there is definitely a group-think factor when it comes to downvotes -- especially when going against the majority opinion -- and while many downvotes can be attributed to that, a solid many other are because you are not a persuasive debater, unnecessarily hostile, fervently dogmatic, and do not engage others in a meaningful way (i.e. walls of copied text with obnoxious bolding in response to a simple question addressing a very particular point.)

Now, like others before me have brought up, you clearly have a deep intellectual curiosity which is fantastic. I highly encourage you to continue the pursuit of education, probably physics, and really get into the game (wouldn't be awesome to link to your published paper in response to critique?) instead of aggressively confronting strangers on the internet.

You know, you're right for the most part.

However, I am still a layman, and while I cannot speak to every aspect of the theory and defend it, the answers are all there.

As I am learning more and more I am more accurately able to defend the theory.

There are a few problems that arise when debating.

1) One of the main tenants of the theory is that it modifies Einsteins field equations to incorporate torsion. This obviously does not sit well with many people, however it is from this modification that the rest of the theory arises.

The problem with that is that many of the aspects of the theory are evaluated against the current framework, without the change. This makes it impossible to defend, because the model in which it is written for is not included.

This also happens with the holographic theory itself, e.g. the criticisms concering how massive the Schwartzchild mass is itself (this is not the rest mass of the proton, this is the holographic mass) and again, the holographic theory is not integrated when the theory is being evaluated.

This is much like looking at observational data of black holes, saying they cannot exist, while ignoring the mathematics that could describe such an event.

However i agree, I do not have all the answers.

What I do know and why I am aggressively defending the theory - is that it does show many astounding results and conclusions, and does so with mathematical proof, that is dismissed due to anyone finding any little hole they can use to dismiss the entire thing (when I can't accurately defend it)

From the texts I've listed comes every single claim in the OP. They are all very straightforward, and all major current physics problems.

I just wish it was evaluated with an open-mind framework, but it's not.

It makes it all or nothing against me, a layman, and so as soon as it gets a bit in depth, the theory is dismissed instead of me and my lack of deep understanding.

However, if you check the current /r/askphysics thread here http://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/2m4xsa/so_theres_a_unification_textbook_floating_around/ - after I am much more capable of understanding and defending the theory, it is clear that it is absolutely not easily dismissible in any aspect - and yet the hivemind prevails, downvoting fact and upvoting wrong assumption. I don't implicate a conspiracy, I implicate group-think.

Anyway, I hope you (and everyone reading this) looks into it for themselves, much like we don't trust most PHD architects on WTC7 even though they have an official scientific explanation that 90% of scientists accept we know it is a physical impossibility as it is described.

Haha! I'm the layman here man, not you. You've clearly read up a lot about the stuff.

However it's not my wish to debate the merits of this theory, instead I just really want to urge you to continue your education. You're passionate about physics, have self-taught yourself thus far, and would make a fantastic teacher if you could impart any of that enthusiasm unto your students.

I'm not sure about your life situation, and I know there's different barriers for different people, but I do know that there are a million reasons not do something, and only a few good reasons to do it. Your enthusiasm and passion are one of those few good reasons, and it would be a shame for it to be wasted.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Except how does he explain neutrons. Since by using psus it would be very wrong. It's not hard to say disregard everything you know and trust me because my model is internally consistent. That doesn't actually prove anything and he came make any predictions with this theory. It's just a few numbers that happen to be close when plugged into an arbitrary equation.

Wrong wrong.

He predicted the proton charge radius that has been recently verified with a proton accelerator. He is the only person to have an algebraic model for the charge radius.

A neutron is a very different thing and basic thing that his theory is very wrong about.

Except when you knock a neutron out of the nucleus, it immediately decays to a proton.

Therefore, we can say a neutron is a proton 'in disguise' and fundamentally a black hole particle as well.

That doesn't really make sense and does not explain the fact that using psu's the mass comes out to be wrong.

?

Also neutrons exist outside of a nucleus. But anyways a neutron has a different mass than a proton. His theory does not account for this. That is a huge hole.

The neutron mass is 99.98% a proton mass.

Exactly so he is off by a noticeable amount.

You are a rude asshole.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Supposing that all of this information is correct, which it may be, why isn't it universally accepted by the "scientific community"? Maybe it's known and used by hidden breakaway civilisations or black ops or...?

What's your explanation, OP?

I have none except for a hive mind dismissal.

It's been seen over and over and over and over in science - it's not a problem of the scientific method, but human group-think, which implements the methodology.

When a groundbreaking theory comes along that alters a major held assumption or belief, it is dismissed as crackpottery, no matter the factual evidence.

If this was a few hundred years ago, Nassim would be executed for being a heretic. Instead he is ostracized, called a crank and stupid, etc.

Seriously, check the rationalwiki article. It's 99% ad hominem attacks, one scientific critique that is extremely easily addressed. And this is the major source for 'debunking' Nassim's work, a character assassination.

Sound enough explanation.

I'm going to hang out on a limb and ask if he, or any of his proponents have tied the works you've posted with human consciousness/free will/biological organisms. I'm sure leaps could be made in the realms of medicine from his ideas, too.

Not yet (it's early in the course) but it does explain phi everywhere and phi being found in biology.

Here is a great resource for fractal holographic theory as applied to life

http://cosmometry.net

And these two links are very good as well

http://holofractal.net/2013/05/30/the-singularity-of-the-heart/

http://holofractal.net/2013/08/08/the-biocrystal/

Wonderful. Thank you.

Sure thing. The biocrystal one is extremely interesting.

It could be as simple as something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

How about http://milesmathis.com/

tl;dr;

Already present in modern physics, and elaborated upon in the last module, the Holographic Principle is defined as the capacity for information storage on the surface of the event horizon of a black hole, where one “bit” of information is equal to one Planck area, which defines the entropy (heat or temperature) of the black hole.

Haramein generalized this principle by first redefining the Planck area bit (or pixel) as a Planck Spherical Unit (PSU) of volume (a quantum voxel), since it is more plausible that the Universe tiles with spherical units rather than with two-dimensional squares, or with three-dimensional cubes for that matter. (Pun intended)

He further demonstrates that there is a simple and fundamental relationship between the information content, in terms of PSUs inside the volume of a black hole, and the PSU information on the surface event horizon, giving a ratio that when multiplied by the Planck mass (the energy of that ratio), generates the exact mass-energy of the black hole. The Schwarzschild solution to Einstein’s field equations gives the exact same answer for the mass of a black hole, however, in the case of Haramein’s generalized holographic solution using quantum voxels we have a quantized gravitational solution (in fine-grained or discrete quantities). Since we find the granularity of spacetime to be a Planck, a quantum object, we have quantum gravity as opposed to the smooth surface of Einstein’s curvature. This reconciles quantum mechanics with General Relativity by demonstrating that the source of gravitation, which is currently unknown in standard theory (the curvature of spacetime describes the mechanics but does not identify what spacetime is made of), is the electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations of the quantum information network.

/r/holofractal

Is that an open journal?

By anonymous people. The only ones that aren't "This should be published" call out the paper for being inconclusive and horribly-executed.

No peer review with actual names attached? Suspicious!

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

In case you want to see Nassim reply to every single point BobAThon raises, see:

http://www.reddit.com/r/holofractal/comments/2klr4u/nassims_response_to_the_famed_bobathon/

That you can express it as volume. Also that the event horizon and black hole have that relationship.

It's not his math that's a problem; it's his concepts.

You totally, totally do not understand the theory if you say

Also his idea of protons having inner black holes solves nothing and just is a further complication that isn't supported at all

Seriously, I shouldn't even bother debating you if you don't understand the implications of ridding the strong force to replace it with space-curvature. This is the holy grail of physics my friend

Ouch they really tear you apart there.

Where is that?

It's really fishy that he changes the equation between calculations.

This is 100% explained.

“Let’s restate these calculations in simple terms: when calculating the gravity of a cosmological black hole, we take its total volume of mass-energy and divide that by its surface (charge radius or event horizon), which tells us how much of an effect the inside information of the object (a relative amount) has on the outside spacetime (the rest of the universe), which is defined as its gravity.

When calculating the gravity (or mass) of a proton,we invert this and take the outside information on the surface that we perceive (the relative amount), and divide it into the inside volume (the universal or holographic amount). The proton has the special property of having an internal vacuum fluctuation mass-energy equal to the mass of the visible Universe, therefore we’re taking our perceived view of a single instance of a proton by the size of its charge radius in Plancks, and dividing it into the internal volume in Plancks (or Universal mass-energy) in order to understand its individual mass-energy or gravity in relationship to all other protons in the universe.”

This is the half-assed critiques of his theory that don't even begin to evaluate it within his framework (A HOLOGRAPHIC ENCODING OF INFORMATION).

You know, you're right for the most part.

However, I am still a layman, and while I cannot speak to every aspect of the theory and defend it, the answers are all there.

As I am learning more and more I am more accurately able to defend the theory.

There are a few problems that arise when debating.

1) One of the main tenants of the theory is that it modifies Einsteins field equations to incorporate torsion. This obviously does not sit well with many people, however it is from this modification that the rest of the theory arises.

The problem with that is that many of the aspects of the theory are evaluated against the current framework, without the change. This makes it impossible to defend, because the model in which it is written for is not included.

This also happens with the holographic theory itself, e.g. the criticisms concering how massive the Schwartzchild mass is itself (this is not the rest mass of the proton, this is the holographic mass) and again, the holographic theory is not integrated when the theory is being evaluated.

This is much like looking at observational data of black holes, saying they cannot exist, while ignoring the mathematics that could describe such an event.

However i agree, I do not have all the answers.

What I do know and why I am aggressively defending the theory - is that it does show many astounding results and conclusions, and does so with mathematical proof, that is dismissed due to anyone finding any little hole they can use to dismiss the entire thing (when I can't accurately defend it)

From the texts I've listed comes every single claim in the OP. They are all very straightforward, and all major current physics problems.

I just wish it was evaluated with an open-mind framework, but it's not.

It makes it all or nothing against me, a layman, and so as soon as it gets a bit in depth, the theory is dismissed instead of me and my lack of deep understanding.

However, if you check the current /r/askphysics thread here http://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/2m4xsa/so_theres_a_unification_textbook_floating_around/ - after I am much more capable of understanding and defending the theory, it is clear that it is absolutely not easily dismissible in any aspect - and yet the hivemind prevails, downvoting fact and upvoting wrong assumption. I don't implicate a conspiracy, I implicate group-think.

Anyway, I hope you (and everyone reading this) looks into it for themselves, much like we don't trust most PHD architects on WTC7 even though they have an official scientific explanation that 90% of scientists accept we know it is a physical impossibility as it is described.