PDA

View Full Version : Nassim Haramein



mike1414
19th March 2010, 17:44
...genius.

Hey people...im sure most of u have seen this guy b4 or atleast heard of him but if u havent i very much recommend it...it is quite long but in my honest opinion he is pretty much spot on. a very clever man...
Crossing the Event Horizon - definately one for those who like their physics and fundamentally how the world works.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6151699791256390335&ei=w7ejS_u3Dcmt-QbUsoGMCw&q=nassim+haramein#

peace always
mike

samvado
19th March 2010, 20:07
Don't get me started on this guy ;-)

check this paper of his:
http://theresonanceproject.org/pdf/origin_of_spin.pdf

I'll copy the remarks from a professional US based physicist, but I would have said the exact same thing if I could (my english is not good enough though):

Quote:

The first sentence says that if you ask where the angular momentum of things (stars, galaxies, particles) comes from, you'll be told it comes from the big bang and then has persisted since because the environment is frictionless.

That is incorrect at just about every level. First, no physicist would ever give that answer - because it makes no sense. As far as we know the net angular momentum at the big bang was zero. Second, all interactions - including of course all those that cause friction - exactly conserve angular momentum. So friction has precisely no effect on the total value of angular momentum (if friction slows the spin of some object, all the angular momentum goes into the object or particles exerting the friction). And third, angular momentum is a vector - which means one or several objects with zero spin can decay or covert into two objects, each with non-zero spin, but which spin equally in opposite directions. That happens all the time (just imagine two asymmetric objects colliding). So there is no need to account for the origin of spin - it can (and does) arise spontaneously, subject to one global constraint (that the total is conserved).

The paper then goes on and one explaining how bad an approximation zero friction is - as if that mattered - conflates angular momentum and energy, etc. etc.

..... end quote

I could fill pages with quotes like that. of course, who has studied sufficient physics to be able to refute his stuff? Even I with *some* background needed days to fact-find enough to know what to think of his theory. Its a waste of time.

Vidya Moksha
19th March 2010, 20:49
Don't get me started on this guy ;-)

, who has studied sufficient physics to be able to refute his stuff? Even I with *some* background needed days to fact-find enough to know what to think of his theory. Its a waste of time.

Hey Sam, Have you read Viktor Schauberger's work. It is amazing and incredible, and it is all so true. And yet it is not 'scientific'. Scientists cant understand his language, he invented his own. Check him out, I have only read the english translation of his work, it must be great to have access to his wok in your own mother tongue...

And I believe its the same with Nassim. His work resonates so much for me. I was very pleased to find it. Forget the big bang stuff, his ideas on fractals are amazing. And he ties in science with spirituality like no other scientists I have encountered.
I am a professional scientist (again) - its mostly dogma (the new religion eh?), and though I play the games I dont believe much of them.

I am grateful for Nassim and his work...

cheers
VM

samvado
19th March 2010, 20:55
[COLOR="Red"]Hey Sam, Have you read Viktor Schauberger's work. It is amazing and incredible, and it is all so true. And yet it is not 'scientific'.

well, being german I know schaubergers work and read all about it decades ago. it is fascinating, victor would however insist that its scientific. you can apply the scientific method to his work and get repetitively the same results.

and if I may say so: physics is not about believing, its about understanding and proving.

and if you dont believe in the big bang as currently sold to us you are in good company. I am fairly certain it is wrong. but for other reasons than you. I would suggest you dive into the works of Burkhard Heim, IMO real genius. his cosmology totally revises our current world view.

Vidya Moksha
19th March 2010, 21:06
well, being german I know schaubergers work and read all about it decades ago. it is fascinating, victor would however insist that its scientific. you can apply the scientific method to his work and get repetitively the same results.

and if I may say so: physics is not about believing, its about understanding and proving.

and how do you do that if you are constrained by logical thinking that may bear no relationship with reality. A lot of science is linear, a lot of physics is mechanical, and neither of these can be applied to biological entities. Nature is based on curves and a straight line can never measure a curve, it can only approximate it.

physics IS about believing, believing the dogmatic basis of science, then applying those principles. Is time linear?

I agree with what you say about Schauberger, but my point was he had to step outside of current scientific thinking to explain his theories. But his was a wake up call also:" Look science, you have it wrong!" So whats changed since his times? not m uch as I can see.

samvado
19th March 2010, 21:20
from what you write I would asume your view of science to be rather constrained and dogmatic.

of course there are dogmatic scientists, there are all kinds of ****ups in "science" as human undertaking, but we are talking about the scietific method here. it allows to come to certain conclusions, there are other ways to come to conclusions too, of course, but know what you are talking about when you do.

you dont "step out of current scientific thinking" because there is no such thing. a biologist looks at schauberger with different eyes and has different tools to verify his work than a physicist or an engineer. or even a mystic, but that would not be scientific. but of course it would be valid. just not scientific.

the edge of science today questions the cause/effect "law" (arrow of time) which would have been unthinkable some decades ago. its all about expanding the paradigm.

justpeter
20th March 2010, 09:59
I agree with those who say Nassim is a genius. Of course I can't prove it but I'm watching his 8-hour presentation for the second time now and it is so logical that it must be right.

David Wilcock rates him highly too. I think it's a waste of time trying to convince some people about things like this. Just go with what feels right is my motto.

samvado
20th March 2010, 10:26
I agree with those who say Nassim is a genius.

and he may well be, he certainly is more intelligent than I am. But it is easier to find flaws in a theory than to come up with one.


Of course I can't prove it

that he is a genius or that his theory is right?


and it is so logical that it must be right.

that would very much depend of your level of understanding of logic. in science there are certain rules. does he follow those rules? fi he did my above example could and would not show him to be wrong. So no matter how logical it seems, what he says is incorrect.


David Wilcock rates him highly too.

that makes two none physicist who believe, but this is not about believing, its about the scientific method applied.


I think it's a waste of time trying to convince some people about things like this. Just go with what feels right is my motto.

first off, what would you then deem worthy of convincing anybody of? and second, feeling right about the earth being flat doesnt make it so.

This is science guys, we are NOT talking fairies or dreams here.

Vidya Moksha
20th March 2010, 10:43
As far as we know the net angular momentum at the big bang was zero..:jester::flypig:

mike1414
20th March 2010, 11:11
Just go with what feels right is my motto.

this is the best advice you will ever here....

peace always
mike

K626
20th March 2010, 11:34
from what you write I would asume your view of science to be rather constrained and dogmatic.

of course there are dogmatic scientists, there are all kinds of ****ups in "science" as human undertaking, but we are talking about the scietific method here. it allows to come to certain conclusions, there are other ways to come to conclusions too, of course, but know what you are talking about when you do.

you dont "step out of current scientific thinking" because there is no such thing. a biologist looks at schauberger with different eyes and has different tools to verify his work than a physicist or an engineer. or even a mystic, but that would not be scientific. but of course it would be valid. just not scientific.

the edge of science today questions the cause/effect "law" (arrow of time) which would have been unthinkable some decades ago. its all about expanding the paradigm.

"In the future I expect science and poetry to be more or less the same thing" Einstien. (Not exact quote but words to that effect).

K

samvado
20th March 2010, 11:47
"In the future I expect science and poetry to be more or less the same thing" Einstien. (Not exact quote but words to that effect).

Poetry exists in the eyes of the beholder. I have no doubts Einstein saw poetry in elegant math. That didnt mean he bent or ignored mathematical rules.
Poetry and science go well together, belief and science dont.

K626
20th March 2010, 12:24
He wasn't very good at maths when he was younger.:p

stardustaquarion
20th March 2010, 14:49
I have found this by accident, it debunks the golden ratio oho! sooooo

The Myth That Will Not Go Away
Part of the process of becoming a mathematics writer is, it appears, learning that you cannot refer to the golden ratio without following the first mention by a phrase that goes something like "which the ancient Greeks and others believed to have divine and mystical properties." Almost as compulsive is the urge to add a second factoid along the lines of "Leonardo Da Vinci believed that the human form displays the golden ratio."

There is not a shred of evidence to back up either claim, and every reason to assume they are both false. Yet both claims, along with various others in a similar vein, live on.

The latest math writer to fall victim to this peculiar compulsion is the author of an otherwise excellent article in Science News Online (week of May 5, 2007). The main focus of that article is the appearance of the golden ratio in nature, which is real, substantiated, and of considerable scientific interest. So much so, in fact, that one wonders why the writer felt the need to spice up her story with falsehoods in her third sentence - for the two golden ratio claims I gave above are direct quotes from her lead.

Before I go any further I should say that my purpose is not to attack a fellow math writer. Indeed, let me confess that for many years I too fell victim to the very same compulsion, as a fairly quick search through some of my earlier writings will testify.

My first suspicions that all was not right with some of the claims made about the aesthetic appeal of the golden ratio were aroused when I admitted to myself that I personally did not find the golden rectangle the most pleasing among all rectangles. My doubts grew when tests I performed on several classes of students revealed that few people, when presented with a page of rectangles of various aspect ratios, picked out as the one they found most pleasing the golden rectangle. (Actually, given that the aspect ratio of any actual rectangle you draw can be only an approximation to a theoretical ideal, a more accurate description of my experiment would be that few people picked the rectangle that most closely approximated the theoretical ideal of a golden rectangle.)

More http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_07.html

Love

lightpotential
20th March 2010, 15:01
I tend more towards the position of Samvado here, for I understand the scientific method quite well, though my degree specialty is not physics as such.

There are many researchers and lecturers out there giving presentations discussing spiritual/esoteric traditions, especially concentrating on 'New Age' themes and the idea of up and coming global earth changes. Now, many of these people, being in a lot of cases amateur investigators so to speak, try to back up their theories with scientific discoveries of the modern age.

And this is where discernment is necessary. Because in some cases various researchers seem to sometimes appropriate various scientific findings and point to them as backing up certain earth-change prophecies, when really, upon careful examination, there is just no decisive evidence at all that is presented to this effect i.e. the connections that they make are just not supported. Such people though can still provide very impressive and uplifting lectures nonetheless.

LP

stardustaquarion
20th March 2010, 15:20
Even the physicists qualify the methods of some as unscientific

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HdkJZAy3pb4&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HdkJZAy3pb4&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/srg1QQlafmU&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/srg1QQlafmU&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I think that people like Haramain can call it logical speculation but they have no proof, that makes it unscientifical.

I for one know that there is more to the world than just what we observe, but lets be fair and don't call an onion a strawberry

We are being taken for a illuminai ride with all this pseudo scientist

Love to all

stardustaquarion
20th March 2010, 15:59
Another article about the slopiness of modern physics by a renown emeritus professor at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford Roger Penrose

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics

Well it is what it is

Love to all

stardustaquarion
20th March 2010, 16:07
And another one, this one is very light hearted

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tHVLSMAJmPg&hl=en_GB&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tHVLSMAJmPg&hl=en_GB&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

So it is all a "inflation" of the imagination it appears

Love

mike1414
21st March 2010, 12:12
thought id add this link http://www.theresonanceproject.org/research.html just for people who want to know more about nassim haramein's project and his recently accredited work on his schwarzschild proton.

i personally find his approach and information satisfyingly fresh and it resonates with me on many levels

peace always
mike

Steven
21st March 2010, 12:25
...genius.

Hey people...im sure most of u have seen this guy b4 or atleast heard of him but if u havent i very much recommend it...it is quite long but in my honest opinion he is pretty much spot on. a very clever man...
Crossing the Event Horizon - definately one for those who like their physics and fundamentally how the world works.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6151699791256390335&ei=w7ejS_u3Dcmt-QbUsoGMCw&q=nassim+haramein#

peace always
mike

I totally agree with you about Nassim Haramein. I would like Bill to meet with him in an interview. Do you know that Nassin won the scientific paper of 2009 with "The Schwarzschild Proton" text? Here is the paper: http://www.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/schwarzschild_proton_a4.pdf

Edit: Ops, while I was writing this, you just posted it 7 mins before, lol.

Namaste, Steven

mike1414
21st March 2010, 12:55
:p there are no coincidences

would like for Bill to meet him too, would be a most interesting interview indeed

peace always
mike

mike1414
24th March 2010, 08:29
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4907540922643918266&ei=g8ypS9uDE9ir-AaG3aTaBg&q=nassim+haramein&hl=en&client=firefox-a#

here is another extremely interesting vid of the man....not as long as the rogue valley one tho

peace always
mike

Scott
24th March 2010, 09:47
Here is some info I gathered on Nassim, & his work.

Enjoy!

Peer reviewed scientific paper Award.

Chosen by a panel of 11 peer reviewers, Haramein's paper won the prestigious "Best Paper Award" in the field of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation.” This significant paper marks a new paradigm in the world of quantum theory, as it describes the nuclei of an atom as a mini black hole, where protons are attracted to each other by gravitation rather than some mysterious undefined “strong force.” This radical new view of the quantum world produces a unification of the forces and appropriately predicts measured values for the nucleon of atoms.

The Award is for this paper.
http://theresonanceproject.org/pdf/schwarzschild_proton_a4.pdf


http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn179/Nazrudin/haramein_award4.jpg


Here is radio show host William Alek speaking about Nassim's new paper "The Schwarzschild Proton":
http://www.achieveradio.com/archplayer.php?showname=The%20%20Progressive%20Tec hnology%20Hour%20with%20William%20Alek&ShowURL=http://audio.achieveradio.com/vortex-net-tech/Oct-10-2009-at-10-00AM---Vortex-Net-Technology.mp3

Nassim's C2C Interview.
hXaLiGwaoic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information on one of Nassim's research partners

PROFESSOR ELIZABETH A. RAUSCHER, Ph.D.
President
Tecnic Research Laboratory
3500 S. Tomahawk Rd., Bldg #188
Apache Junction, AZ 85219
http://elizabethrauscher.com/
Dr. Rauscher is author of over 275 scientific papers, 6 books, 3 US patents and 1 European patent.

They shared credit on these papers.

THE ORIGIN OF SPIN: A CONSIDERATION OF TORQUE AND CORIOLIS FORCES
IN EINSTEIN’S FIELD EQUATIONS AND GRAND UNIFICATION THEORY
http://www.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/torque_paper.pdf

COLLECTIVE COHERENT OSCILLATION PLASMA MODES IN SURROUNDING
MEDIA OF BLACK HOLES AND VACUUM STRUCTURE - QUANTUM PROCESSES
WITH CONSIDERATIONS OF SPACE-TIME TORQUE AND CORIOLIS FORCES
http://www.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/plasma_paper.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2 Nassim Interviews at the Conscious media network.

Nassim Haramein Part 1
http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/nharamein.htm

Nassim Haramein Part 2
http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/nharamein2.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nassim Haramein: The Phi Ratio Part 1
jBo0DlIhd40

Nassim Haramein: The Phi Ratio Part 2
On82Wy982Bg

stardustaquarion
24th March 2010, 10:21
Well it goes to show the power of money! Just like the Nobel Prize

I am not against his theories, but they are just theories more in of philosophical perspective. It is not sciences. During the 300 years that sciences have existed on its own, there have been many popular theories that have not wistand the test of times. As new technology was brought for, many theories were probed wrong.

I have made further research into the golden mean and it is a freemasonic concotion in my opinion

Love

Vidya Moksha
24th March 2010, 10:28
Well it goes to show the power of money! Just like the Nobel Prize

I have made further research into the golden mean and it is a freemasonic concotion in my opinion

Love

any links? i see the spiral all the time in my work... I can believe that the golden mean ratio applies to natural processes..
(I also think the fib sequence is a man made approximation of it, and not necessarily a good one! science does seem to like to straighten curves )

stardustaquarion
24th March 2010, 10:30
Well it goes to show the power of money! Just like the Nobel Prize

I am not against his theories, but they are just philosophical theories, not sciences. During the 300 years that sciences have existed on its own, there have been many popular theories that have not wistand the test of times. As new technology was brought for, many theories were proved wrong.

I have made further research into the golden mean and it is a freemasonic concoction to control us which is why it is everywhere in official buildings. That is just my opinion

Love

Scott
27th March 2010, 09:57
This is a follow-up Radio interview with William Alek & YouTuber AlienScientist speaking about Nassim's new paper.

Follow-Up on Nassim's Schwarzschild Proton Paper

pVRgSvsQnE0

Scott
27th March 2010, 09:58
Just in case anyone wanted to hear the full interview with YouTuber Alien Scientist here is the archive of the show.

Enjoy.

http://www.achieveradio.com/archplayer.php?showname=The%20%20Progressive%20Tec hnology%20Hour%20with%20William%20Alek&ShowURL=http://audio.achieveradio.com/vortex-net-tech/Jan-02-2010-at-10-00AM---Vortex-Net-Technology.mp3

This is his YouTube channel as well.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AlienScientist

Scott
27th March 2010, 10:26
YouTuber AlienScientist's Original review of Nassim's work.

Quantum Gravity Unification of Strong Nuclear Force

D8IcciRHGvQ

I should have added this before the Radio interview follow-up but I keep double posting by mistake haha

justpeter
27th March 2010, 10:31
I thought the 9th minute of the "Part 2" video was interesting. He says he's looked into the critics of Nassim's theories and it's all basically tittle-tattle (my words). None of his critics can produce anything that disputes the science of his theories, they just concentrate on nit-picking irrelevancies (my words again).

Personally speaking, I've watched Nassim's 8-hour youtube presentation twice! If that guy is a hoaxer then I'm a jam donut.

Edit to explain that "jam" is the English version of what Americans call "jelly" (I think).

watchZEITGEISTnow
27th March 2010, 11:16
just adding my full support and appreciation of Nazza :)

stardustaquarion
27th March 2010, 11:32
any links? i see the spiral all the time in my work... I can believe that the golden mean ratio applies to natural processes..
(I also think the fib sequence is a man made approximation of it, and not necessarily a good one! science does seem to like to straighten curves )

Sorry Vidya Moksha somehow I missed your question, here is the link to an earlier post that has the link http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?307-Nassim-Haramein&p=1282&viewfull=1#post1282

Cheers

Vidya Moksha
27th March 2010, 21:03
Sorry Vidya Moksha somehow I missed your question, here is the link to an earlier post that has the link http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?307-Nassim-Haramein&p=1282&viewfull=1#post1282

Cheers

OK thanks.. this is interesting. Sorry to be pedantic, but I had the notion the golden mean was 'not seen in nature', which I think it is (and so does the author of your post). What the article is saying is that there is no evidence of its diviine and mystical properties, as 'believed' by ancient civs....which is interesting. There is SO much falsehood in the world. maybe we should just stop at the word 'maya' that the yogis use, switch off our computers and go into the world and observe for ourselves? (assuming we could lose the conditioning we hold first)

jasontorque
5th May 2010, 00:59
:p there are no coincidences

would like for Bill to meet him too, would be a most interesting interview indeed

peace always
mike

I thought this was interesting: http://azureworld.blogspot.com/

mike1414
5th August 2010, 11:16
the power of spin -

(just click the x to skip the annoying advert!)


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbpa5w_the-power-of-spin-trailer_tech


The Unified Field Theory breaks down the interconnectedness of all life, all matter, all subtle energy influences, from the sub-atomic level, to that of the entirety of the universe. In theory there is an infinite division of the whole vacuum of the cosmos, where every atom can be broken down to smaller and smaller levels, and the vastness of all the galaxies can expand and incorporate larger and larger models.

In actuality, everything is perfected and sustained through a self-generated feedback loop, caused by torque and spin, and the coriolis effect. Within this holistic, and unified view of physics, all of these forces are in balance, allowing a level of tension to keep the whole wheel turning. This applies for things outside of the realm of cosmic forces, but applies to us as well.

Like the teachings of ancient civilizations, which the Resonance Project is a reflection of, everything is made out of the same material, stardust. We are truly all interconnected, and like the Butterfly Effect, we are in a constant state of flux where all of our influences are at play with each other and the universe.

With all matter, all the cosmos, folding in on itself, in an infinite scale of higher and lower forms, all this motion is generated from a hub, a central point, in which everything is coiled in a constant state of motion, giving and pulling, creating the necessary tension for the whole round of life to continue to exist in motion. This singularity within infinity, goes to the Event Horizon, the point where" light is pulled into a closed orbit," where galaxies exist inside of black holes, and black holes exist inside of black holes, until this division of one comes to the ultimate Event Horizon, the void point where all the information of the Universe is stored in reflection.

We ourselves can harness the same Event Horizon, and therefore can access the same effect on a microcosmic scale. This is the same goal of meditation, channeling, all acts that are consciously within the "divine," this cosmic feedback loop of infinite singularity. Because "every point is connected to all other points," we have that ability, as reflections of that unified order, to access any other point, to peer into the Akashic record, and to visualize that god-force, that perfect point of balance where everything is suspended by all resulting forces.

In doing so, "you have influence on all things on the universe, and the universe has an influence on you. That feedback of what is outside of yourself and inside of yourself becomes a conscious participant in that feedback of creation that is able to influence reality." Therefore, quite literally, "God," the unified force, is within you, and can be broken down into a scientific equation.

loving nassim's work!

peace always
mike

Steven
5th August 2010, 14:39
Just the fact he asks the question 'what produce the spin?', he gives to western modern science a true opportunity to unlock its own limited scientifical understanding. And more, he provides an intelligent and coherent response, that naturally challenges the hard datas of the scientific community because the measurement tools aren't created yet. Or are created, but not public... Do not forget science is like religion, controlling the mass to beleive in which they want us to beleive.

Of course the dogma of the scientific community are challenged, just the example of torsion electromagnetic field gathering matters and gazes forming round shaped bodies like planets might brought up the idea that all planets have an orifice at its rotational center, just like a liquid behave when it sink into a hole, thus replacing the hollow Earth theory into a not so ridiculous idea after all.

I applaud his courage and sees him like a protagonist of a new science emerging.

Namaste, Steven

truthseekerdan
5th August 2010, 15:44
Great video find, Mike :thumb:
Thanks for posting. :)

Namaste, ~ Dan

conk
6th August 2010, 15:44
Please stop posting in a colored font if you want your posts read.

Rimbaud
7th August 2010, 01:54
Don't get me started on this guy ;-)

check this paper of his:
http://theresonanceproject.org/pdf/origin_of_spin.pdf

I'll copy the remarks from a professional US based physicist, but I would have said the exact same thing if I could (my english is not good enough though):

Quote:

The first sentence says that if you ask where the angular momentum of things (stars, galaxies, particles) comes from, you'll be told it comes from the big bang and then has persisted since because the environment is frictionless.

That is incorrect at just about every level. First, no physicist would ever give that answer - because it makes no sense. As far as we know the net angular momentum at the big bang was zero. Second, all interactions - including of course all those that cause friction - exactly conserve angular momentum. So friction has precisely no effect on the total value of angular momentum (if friction slows the spin of some object, all the angular momentum goes into the object or particles exerting the friction). And third, angular momentum is a vector - which means one or several objects with zero spin can decay or covert into two objects, each with non-zero spin, but which spin equally in opposite directions. That happens all the time (just imagine two asymmetric objects colliding). So there is no need to account for the origin of spin - it can (and does) arise spontaneously, subject to one global constraint (that the total is conserved).

The paper then goes on and one explaining how bad an approximation zero friction is - as if that mattered - conflates angular momentum and energy, etc. etc.

..... end quote

I could fill pages with quotes like that. of course, who has studied sufficient physics to be able to refute his stuff? Even I with *some* background needed days to fact-find enough to know what to think of his theory. Its a waste of time.

Samvado,

Your English seems spot on to me, and your presentation is compelling. Thanks for your instructive post

Rimbaud

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Please stop posting in a colored font if you want your posts read.

Especially the light blue or green ones!

Rimbaud

Victoria Tintagel
24th December 2010, 22:19
Hey Avaloneans, here's a teaching that's very well presented in a lighthearted way :)
Blessed be, Dutchess Tint.
At the Nexus Conference in July 2010, physicist Nassim Haramein presented new concepts explaining how we are all interconnected and can access infinite knowledge.

http://www.theresonanceproject.org




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y5bXdx5UrE

Zook
25th December 2010, 03:25
Hi Dutchess,


Hey Avaloneans, here's a teaching that's very well presented in a lighthearted way :)
Blessed be, Dutchess Tint.
At the Nexus Conference in July 2010, physicist Nassim Haramein presented new concepts explaining how we are all interconnected and can access infinite knowledge.
http://www.theresonanceproject.org
[...]


Thank you for the find! I absolutely love that Haramein guy! Pure genius at work. He thinks in patterns, so I connect with him in that way. I'm in total agreement with his fractal hypothesis of the Universe. As above, so below. And he explains the relation between infinity and finite systems much better than anyone else I've seen or read. 90 minutes went by like 9 seconds, if you ask me!

:typing:

ps: There are a lot of gaps in conventional understandings of the Universe; and that's largely because box-thinking physicists are focused on solving the Universe as opposed to understanding it. Alas, fractals can't be solved; but they can be understood. Understanding this, Haramein shifts his focus to patterns and scales (and constructions therein) ... as opposed to establishment science which looks for building blocks (and constructions therein). At least, that's how I understand his approach.

Victoria Tintagel
25th December 2010, 10:49
Zookumar:
And he explains the relation between infinity and finite systems much better than anyone else I've seen or read. 90 minutes went by like 9 seconds, if you ask me!
Hey Zookumar, thanks for your appreciation :) Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with you, Nassim owns his knowledge and he's transparant. He uses his talent to be chuckling almost all the time, I enjoy myself enormously and I am totally present, when I see and hear him. Great, isn't it? To see men like Nassim Haramein, like David Wilcock, come out with their zest and style, their total dedication combined with a lighthearted way to present it. I recognise this and feel it's a great transformational quality. Who told us to take life seriously, hmmmm? :) Blessed be, Dutchess Tint.

greybeard
26th December 2010, 23:11
Hey Avaloneans, here's a teaching that's very well presented in a lighthearted way :)
Blessed be, Dutchess Tint.
At the Nexus Conference in July 2010, physicist Nassim Haramein presented new concepts explaining how we are all interconnected and can access infinite knowledge.

http://www.theresonanceproject.org




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y5bXdx5UrE

Awesome Proof of God in space, each atom full of space which is full of energy.
Thanks Tintagelcave.

cloud9
27th December 2010, 03:22
I listened to this video with great interest, I've always been a fan of Haramein's work.

What a shame some people find pleasure discrediting anybody who dares to say or do something different! In that regard, it's the same as in old ages: Copernicus, Galileo and others.

I truly believe mathematics are not absolutely necessary when you can think of concepts based on observation of nature and that's what Haramein does very well. New concepts and ideas is what we all need, not just numbers.

Haramein uses a lot of logic and common sense in his theory, he is not just looking for the perfect math formula as others do, he's looking for the most logical way to explain the way things are and if in doing so he can correct or change an already known formula or data, what's wrong with that?

Science has been wrong before, so why should we trust it 100%? Besides, what he does is not science? What it is?

Is his theory less scientific because...... what? Because others do not approve it or agree with it?

Come on! He is a scientist! A great one indeed.

People like him have changed history, not the naysayers.

Einstein had his detractors too.

cloud9
27th December 2010, 06:12
I'd like to know what others here think of what Haramein said about "ascension": we need to get off our rock! A fundamental step a civilization must do and we are right at that point. From 1:10:20 - 1:12:30 in this video

0Y5bXdx5UrE&feature=player_embedded

StephenW11UK
27th December 2010, 19:29
Hi Sam [samvado] First, two comments: (1) you are obviously an open-minded scientist and I thank you for your contributions to this thread and (2) I'm fascinated by a lot of the scientific theories I come across on the internet. But I have a problem that I think some other avaloneans will share, namely that with no scientific training beyond the very limited level of a secondary school I am in no position to make science-method-type decisions about Haramein's theories or those of any other scientist. I have no choice, as you are hinting, but to rely on my gut feeling, which in the example of Nassim's lecture at the July 2010 Nexus Conference (tintagelcave graciously providing the link) got me once again to 'recognise' the beauty of thought and the genius of the man.

There is another aspect to this that I find interesting to ponder, and that is that Creation has been directing the unfolding of the universe for quite some time now. As a consequence, it is at least conceivable that, even within the next 100 years (considering the exponential rate at which information is coming to us), another great paradigm shift with effects comparable to those of the 'flat earth' shift, will take place with the result that many present-day scientific understandings will be no longer relevant. The things one reads about alien technology and advanced alien spirituality certainly suggest this.

My problem with the lack of scientific 'know-how' is greatly compounded when I'm trying to get my head around the vast amount of conflicting opinion concerning pharmaceuticals, changes in earth's climate, the hidden side of science, exopolitics, channeling, the so-called elite, energy medicine and healing, and of course 2012, to name but a few. In fact, I can find it all very confusing, and even quite scarey.

So, how can one begin to cope with such a state of affairs? Rather obviously, each of us has to find our own way. And especially here, I've found, it's tellingly important to not believe anything anyone else, irrespective of their 'following', tells us - unless their truth rings true for us. People whose 'teachings' I've found helpful are those, and there are many of them, who seem from deep within to be at ease with life and confident of a much more delightful and challenging future than what we have at present.

One such teaching that I personally have found very helpful over the years has been this one of the zen master, Adyashanti: "The door to freedom is the insecurity of not knowing anything. Bear the grace of that insecurity and all wisdom will be yours". My take on that has been to sit gently within the field of insecurity and, with as little mind-chatter as I can manage, allow the insecurity to dissolve away. The result is a kind of calm, of peace, and also, I suspect, a bit more wisdom.

Love to all.

onawah
28th December 2010, 03:36
Nassim doesn't just understand physics intellectually, he experiences it instinctively, viscerally and spiritually. That's what sets him apart from the mainstream scientists, along with Einstein, Newton, etc.

elysian
12th January 2011, 23:18
This guy deserves a lot more attention. What is he up to today? As I can see a lot of his videos are a couple of years old. Any one know? These videos are food for thought that will keep me full for days. thank you! :)

StephenW11UK
13th January 2011, 04:39
Hi Sam,

With no scientific background but, despite that, fascinated by many areas of scientific research, I have to rely on others - some of them prominent scientists, where I can find them - to explain science in ways a layman can understand.

You are doubtless aware that, more and more over the last two or three decades, scientists with impeccable credentials have spent their lives investigating areas of life that orthodox science in general often refuses even to look at. I give just three examples.

(1) John Mack, a Harvard professor of psychiatry, was deeply involved in doing research with UFO contactees and more recently with crop circles.

(2) Bruce Lipton for his part in the research into the it's-all-in-our-genes hypothesis of modern biology and for bringing the results of that research to a wider public. Of some consequence, surely, is it that the great Karl Pibram writes: "The Biology of Belief is a review of a quarter-century of pioneering results in Epigenetics...Its personal style makes it eminently readable and enjoyable".

(3) One of the books by Dean Radin of the IONS Institute of Noetic Sciences - his credentials: http://noetic.org/directory/person/dean-radin/ - is the Conscious Universe, a title not likely to attract many readers from among orthodox scientists.

My point here is that it would be a total waste of time my going to almost any orthodox scientist for a deeper understanding of the work of these men. And the same applies to Nassim Haramein.

Regina, of ConsciousMediaNetwork, offers this summation of part of his work: The Schwarzschild Proton paper has recently received the prestigious “Best Paper Award” in the field of physics, quantum mechanics, relativity, field theory, and gravitation at the University of Liège, Belgium during the 9th International Conference CASYS’09.

Maybe, though I find this hard to believe, maybe the members of the physics faculty at Lieges have degrees no higher than the Master's level. So, if one of the physicists among us could provide me with good evidence for their academic quaifications, whatever they are, I'd certainly appreciate it.

My normal way of dealing with this sort of problem - not only in science, but in other fields too in which I have no training - is to check out the thinking of interviewees listed in, for example, Camelot Library, people whose opinions I've come to respect (but not gullibly take on board) .

With respect to Haramein my gut feeling is that he's worth my listening to. His video on fractals is fascinating; another, on two particular crop circles (related to Carl Sagan) offers very nice evidence for communication from a source way beyond this solar system http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hNYVALGdnM&NR=1 (start at about 1.20 mins); and, further, he's a mystic.

Anchor
13th January 2011, 11:53
Hey Avaloneans, here's a teaching that's very well presented in a lighthearted way :)
Blessed be, Dutchess Tint.
At the Nexus Conference in July 2010, physicist Nassim Haramein presented new concepts explaining how we are all interconnected and can access infinite knowledge.

http://www.theresonanceproject.org


I watched this and my life has been massively enriched.

Thanks so much for posting this.

conk
13th January 2011, 16:26
A prominent physicist has recently said that our understanding of science and physics needs to be re-evaluated. It appears that Harimein is doing just that.

Sorry, I am a businessman and not technically minded. Does Harimein use Vortex Based math in his work?

Paul
13th January 2011, 17:34
Does Haramein use Vortex Based math in his work?I had not heard of Marko Rodin's Vortex Based math and the Rodin Solution until a few minutes ago. My first glance at it has my BS detector going Ding-Ding-Ding. Consider for example The Rodin Solution Project (http://www.scribd.com/doc/28500618/Rodin-Coil-Dark-Energy-Tapping-Rodin). This starts out reading as hype and a funding proposal, not as any sort of mathematics or science that I can evaluate.

David Icke spoke well of Rodin's work, at The Vortex Maths - Marko Rodin Thread (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61370). I lack the energy to delve into the 1300+ threads on that Icke thread to see if this positive view of Rodin's work holds up well through that thread.

As to your question of whether Haramein uses Vortex Based math ... I don't really have a clue yet.

P.S. -- But if Haramein is using Rodin's Vortex Based math, then that would make me much more skeptical of Haramein's work (which I have just begun to consider.)

mike1414
24th February 2011, 08:54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxeBPkIEPVM

peace always
mike

vibrations
24th February 2011, 09:05
Nassim is just admirable. His several hours long conferences are so interesting you just can't stop watching it. And everything fits. The other brilliant theorist is also Marko Rodin (there is a post somewhere with his presentation. I think this two should come together and see where their investigations overlap. It’s like inventing the physics from the scratch.

greybeard
24th February 2011, 10:45
I love it when science and spirituality blend.
Nassim is dedicated to the art of science. He has had an award for the best paper from other scientist to there is some agreement.
I hve recently posted two videos on the Enlightenment: Ego wht is it thread in the spiritual section.
A very recent one by astral walker with included NASA pictures of in coming massive magnetic energy which will hit the Sun.--- Guess when?
David S as well on Coast to coast.
Please have a look it is important.
These talks confirm what Nassim is saying also David Wilcock though I dont follow any one of them.
I think it is best o cross check and cross check, and we also have main stream scientists warning of Billions of dollars damage around 2012 -13 due to the solar max and flares resulting from that.
So we have evidence from the number crunching Astro Physics and Sacred Geometry and pictures from space and of course computer simulations.

Evidence of what?
Well something unusual is going on which may well render cash machines inoperative, supermarket tills and computors will need back up, petrol pumps may not work
The list is endless, it might be short term but it makes sense to have a bit extra food in.

Chris

K626
24th February 2011, 10:59
I love it when science and spirituality blend.
Nassim is dedicated to the art of science. He has had an award for the best paper from other scientist to there is some agreement.
I hve recently posted two videos on the Enlightenment: Ego wht is it thread in the spiritual section.
A very recent one by astral walker with included NASA pictures of in coming massive magnetic energy which will hit the Sun.--- Guess when?
David S as well on Coast to coast.
Please have a look it is important.
These talks confirm what Nassim is saying also David Wilcock though I dont follow any one of them.
I think it is best o cross check and cross check, and we also have main stream scientists warning of Billions of dollars damage around 2012 -13 due to the solar max and flares resulting from that.
So we have evidence from the number crunching Astro Physics and Sacred Geometry and pictures from space and of course computer simulations.

Evidence of what?
Well something unusual is going on which may well render cash machines inoperative, supermarket tills and computors will need back up, petrol pumps may not work
The list is endless, it might be short term but it makes sense to have a bit extra food in.

Chris

Satellites will be the first to go down, only the most recent have good shielding...The PTW will be blind (well even blinder than they already are).

cheers

K

greybeard
24th February 2011, 13:44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxeBPkIEPVM

peace always
mike

Thanks for thisMike
I listened al through and while I dont understand the numbers I get what he is trying to bring to our notice
Through his work there is the real possibility of a free energy for all, he also points out that there are already ways of producing cheap energy.

The profound statement he makes is that the problems of this world are cause by fear of lack (ego).
When there is the ability to provide all that we need effortlessly then that fear is redundant.
We want to leave a better place for our children.
If you havent listened yet please do

Chris

Victoria Tintagel
24th February 2011, 17:29
Thank you very much, Mike, so happy you're sharing your heart, because you are shining :) Be in grace, Victoria Tintagel

elysian
25th February 2011, 11:12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxeBPkIEPVM

peace always
mike

If anyone is interested in part 2, here you go :)

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2011/01/RIR-110106-nharamein721-SUB.mp3

buckminster fuller
25th February 2011, 23:59
For those who havn't seen it yet, the documentary 'what the bleep do we know? Down the rabbit hole' makes a really nice companion to nassim work. It goes into quantum physics, consciousness and physiology. A must see really.

VT50SV3W5K0

Peace

CyRus
2nd March 2011, 04:16
Personally, I find Nassim Haramein to be nothing more than a New-Age theorist. His claim to fame is of course his 'Award Winning Paper' on the Schwartzchild Proton he claims was awarded to him by the University of Liége.
Under closer scrutiny, however, the truth is not so cut and dried:
This award was not sanctioned by the University at all, rather it was awarded by the participants of a conference held at Liége. Moreover, the participants in the conference were not even physicists!
So this award was not prestigious at all, but rather a diploma for attending a conference in Liege, as these participants had no authority to grant him this award.

Another intriguing aspect of Haramein is the fact that he appears to be a really bad physicist. I will attempt to point out one of the more elementary fallacies below, but please bear with me, as I am no physicist:

His presents his idea of the Schwarzchild Proton, which is a black hole with a mass of 8.85 x 10^14 gm, which translates roughly into 885 million tonnes. Fair enough right?
The reason this mass is chosen is that it's the mass that a black hole would need to have in order for it to have the same radius as a proton. Haramein takes the radius of a proton to be 1.32fm.
(Here he is also grossly mistaken, as this is in fact the Compton Wavelength of a proton, not its radius)

The paper suggests that a 'real' proton is in fact a Schwarzchild proton, but the actual science is not in his favour.
The mass of a proton, as far as I'm aware is approximately 1.672621637×10−27 kg, or rather 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram.
The mass of a Schwarzchild proton is 885 million metric tonnes!

This should imply that he at the very least is grossly misinterpreting what he is trying to convey, which is 'unusual' for someone who apparently is on the cutting edge of science and rewriting contemporary physics... :S

TimelessDimensions
2nd March 2011, 06:52
He wasn't very good at maths when he was younger.:p

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Albert Einstein drop out of school?

TimelessDimensions
2nd March 2011, 07:03
I'd like to know what others here think of what Haramein said about "ascension": we need to get off our rock! A fundamental step a civilization must do and we are right at that point. From 1:10:20 - 1:12:30 in this video

0Y5bXdx5UrE&feature=player_embedded

From 1:10:20 - 1:12:30 in this video Nassim only uses the word "ascend" once in the context of humanity going forth into space travel, he does not make any links to the spiritual theories around "ascension".

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Nassim doesn't just understand physics intellectually, he experiences it instinctively, viscerally and spiritually. That's what sets him apart from the mainstream scientists, along with Einstein, Newton, etc.

Although, both Einstein and Newton where also deeply spiritual people who spent much time in meditation, contemplation and research into the ancient spiritual arts.

vibrations
2nd March 2011, 07:17
Personally, I find Nassim Haramein to be nothing more than a New-Age theorist. His claim to fame is of course his 'Award Winning Paper' on the Schwartzchild Proton he claims was awarded to him by the University of Liége.
Under closer scrutiny, however, the truth is not so cut and dried:
This award was not sanctioned by the University at all, rather it was awarded by the participants of a conference held at Liége. Moreover, the participants in the conference were not even physicists!
So this award was not prestigious at all, but rather a diploma for attending a conference in Liege, as these participants had no authority to grant him this award.

Another intriguing aspect of Haramein is the fact that he appears to be a really bad physicist. I will attempt to point out one of the more elementary fallacies below, but please bear with me, as I am no physicist:

His presents his idea of the Schwarzchild Proton, which is a black hole with a mass of 8.85 x 10^14 gm, which translates roughly into 885 million tonnes. Fair enough right?
The reason this mass is chosen is that it's the mass that a black hole would need to have in order for it to have the same radius as a proton. Haramein takes the radius of a proton to be 1.32fm.
(Here he is also grossly mistaken, as this is in fact the Compton Wavelength of a proton, not its radius)

The paper suggests that a 'real' proton is in fact a Schwarzchild proton, but the actual science is not in his favour.
The mass of a proton, as far as I'm aware is approximately 1.672621637×10−27 kg, or rather 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram.
The mass of a Schwarzchild proton is 885 million metric tonnes!

This should imply that he at the very least is grossly misinterpreting what he is trying to convey, which is 'unusual' for someone who apparently is on the cutting edge of science and rewriting contemporary physics... :S

I am curious, do you belive in a Nobel Prize?

wolf_rt
2nd March 2011, 08:12
Don Getazzio, perhaps you can point me to the physicist who's unified field theory actually works out?

super t
2nd March 2011, 10:59
Personally, I find Nassim Haramein to be nothing more than a New-Age theorist. His claim to fame is of course his 'Award Winning Paper' on the Schwartzchild Proton he claims was awarded to him by the University of Liége.
Under closer scrutiny, however, the truth is not so cut and dried:
This award was not sanctioned by the University at all, rather it was awarded by the participants of a conference held at Liége. Moreover, the participants in the conference were not even physicists!
So this award was not prestigious at all, but rather a diploma for attending a conference in Liege, as these participants had no authority to grant him this award.

Another intriguing aspect of Haramein is the fact that he appears to be a really bad physicist. I will attempt to point out one of the more elementary fallacies below, but please bear with me, as I am no physicist:

His presents his idea of the Schwarzchild Proton, which is a black hole with a mass of 8.85 x 10^14 gm, which translates roughly into 885 million tonnes. Fair enough right?
The reason this mass is chosen is that it's the mass that a black hole would need to have in order for it to have the same radius as a proton. Haramein takes the radius of a proton to be 1.32fm.
(Here he is also grossly mistaken, as this is in fact the Compton Wavelength of a proton, not its radius)

The paper suggests that a 'real' proton is in fact a Schwarzchild proton, but the actual science is not in his favour.
The mass of a proton, as far as I'm aware is approximately 1.672621637×10−27 kg, or rather 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram.
The mass of a Schwarzchild proton is 885 million metric tonnes!

This should imply that he at the very least is grossly misinterpreting what he is trying to convey, which is 'unusual' for someone who apparently is on the cutting edge of science and rewriting contemporary physics... :S

I hope you contact him and get back to us with his reply;)!

CyRus
3rd March 2011, 16:04
Personally, I find Nassim Haramein to be nothing more than a New-Age theorist. His claim to fame is of course his 'Award Winning Paper' on the Schwartzchild Proton he claims was awarded to him by the University of Liége.
Under closer scrutiny, however, the truth is not so cut and dried:
This award was not sanctioned by the University at all, rather it was awarded by the participants of a conference held at Liége. Moreover, the participants in the conference were not even physicists!
So this award was not prestigious at all, but rather a diploma for attending a conference in Liege, as these participants had no authority to grant him this award.

Another intriguing aspect of Haramein is the fact that he appears to be a really bad physicist. I will attempt to point out one of the more elementary fallacies below, but please bear with me, as I am no physicist:

His presents his idea of the Schwarzchild Proton, which is a black hole with a mass of 8.85 x 10^14 gm, which translates roughly into 885 million tonnes. Fair enough right?
The reason this mass is chosen is that it's the mass that a black hole would need to have in order for it to have the same radius as a proton. Haramein takes the radius of a proton to be 1.32fm.
(Here he is also grossly mistaken, as this is in fact the Compton Wavelength of a proton, not its radius)

The paper suggests that a 'real' proton is in fact a Schwarzchild proton, but the actual science is not in his favour.
The mass of a proton, as far as I'm aware is approximately 1.672621637×10−27 kg, or rather 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram.
The mass of a Schwarzchild proton is 885 million metric tonnes!

This should imply that he at the very least is grossly misinterpreting what he is trying to convey, which is 'unusual' for someone who apparently is on the cutting edge of science and rewriting contemporary physics... :S

I am curious, do you belive in a Nobel Prize?

Of course I do, but I strongly doubt that someone with such obvious flaws in his calculations would win!

I do seem to have rattled some feathers with my post, I was not aware that Haramein was so popular.

All I ask is: "Be aware of false prophets!"

CyRus
3rd March 2011, 16:08
Don Getazzio, perhaps you can point me to the physicist who's unified field theory actually works out?
That is not the point! It is not the fact that his theory doesn't work, it is rather the fact that his calculations are highly flawed and his knowledge of physics seems to be "questionable".
The problem is his glib-tongue. He is highly eloquent and I can understand the "fascination".

To me he seems to be starting a cult. The main problem I have with him is his arrogance and how pretentious he is! He always claims his paper won an award for best physics paper, yet this is not the case at all!

wolf_rt
3rd March 2011, 23:00
Sorry Don, that was a combative post. Its perfectly obvious that Nassim doesn't have all the answers, my point is that no one else does either, he has a fresh viewpoint and that is something i respect.

Nassim's 'questionable' knowledge of physics may be his strong point. Plenty of people have a comprehensive knowledge of 'mainstream' physics, and are completely stuck, and have been for some time. There equations don't work out, so they 'normalize' certain constants, and they STILL don't work out! It is obvious that a new viewpoint is needed, and that is what Nassim has weather he is right or not...

Is he right? Probably not, but then neither is anyone else, so why pick on him? EVERY physicist's calculations are apparently 'highly flawed' or we would have some provable answers by now.

Math is certainly not my strong point, but nassim's ideas sit well with me, now that doesn't make him right, but at least he appears to work with what is measurable, rather than changing the facts to fit his theory as many 'mainstream' physicists apparently do. He also appears to adhear to the KISS principal, which is refreshing for a physicist.

Personally i didn't find him arrogant, pretentious may-be.

His ideas also allow for 'free' energy which i believe is a reality.

I don't see why you worry about cults or false prophets? either he is right, wrong, or somewhere in between (most likley) he is mearly presenting an idea, i dont see how that can be dangerous. (At least in physics)

CyRus
4th March 2011, 01:34
Sorry Don, that was a combative post. Its perfectly obvious that Nassim doesn't have all the answers, my point is that no one else does either, he has a fresh viewpoint and that is something i respect.

Nassim's 'questionable' knowledge of physics may be his strong point. Plenty of people have a comprehensive knowledge of 'mainstream' physics, and are completely stuck, and have been for some time. There equations don't work out, so they 'normalize' certain constants, and they STILL don't work out! It is obvious that a new viewpoint is needed, and that is what Nassim has weather he is right or not...

Is he right? Probably not, but then neither is anyone else, so why pick on him? EVERY physicist's calculations are apparently 'highly flawed' or we would have some provable answers by now.

Math is certainly not my strong point, but nassim's ideas sit well with me, now that doesn't make him right, but at least he appears to work with what is measurable, rather than changing the facts to fit his theory as many 'mainstream' physicists apparently do. He also appears to adhear to the KISS principal, which is refreshing for a physicist.

Personally i didn't find him arrogant, pretentious may-be.

His ideas also allow for 'free' energy which i believe is a reality.

I don't see why you worry about cults or false prophets? either he is right, wrong, or somewhere in between (most likley) he is mearly presenting an idea, i dont see how that can be dangerous. (At least in physics)
Fair enough! =)
The one aspect that really raises red flags in my mind (as well as setting my BS alarm off big time) is when people start selling DVDs and the like en masse.
Haramein just rubs me the wrong way somehow, but I fully respect your views and I believe if he inspires you or makes you think that is brilliant! ;)

Peace and love

Whiskey_Mystic
4th March 2011, 01:55
The one aspect that really raises red flags in my mind (as well as setting my BS alarm off big time) is when people start selling DVDs and the like en masse.


So... you would therefore distrust Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking because they sold products? I invite you to judge Haramein's work based on the content of that work. The enlightened student seperates the teacher from the lesson.

CyRus
4th March 2011, 02:09
The one aspect that really raises red flags in my mind (as well as setting my BS alarm off big time) is when people start selling DVDs and the like en masse.


So... you would therefore distrust Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking because they sold products? I invite you to judge Haramein's work based on the content of that work. The enlightened student seperates the teacher from the lesson.

I do indeed judge Haramein's work based on the content, and the content is full of holes and flaws. What people do not understand is that his work is hardy revolutionary. He uses very simple equations to string out numbers that suit his theory. The problem is, his results do not conform to experimental values at all and therefore are wrong.

When the work is as sloppy and flawed as it is, I would refrain from buying his products as it is seems obvious he is a charlatan. Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking are brilliant and their work holds merit. One would not read one of their theoretical papers and come across elementary mathematical flaws.

This man critiques Nassim Haramein's theory objectively and justly:
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/nassim-haramein-fraud-or-sage.html

I am a very spiritual person and I greatly support the work of any scientists who honestly try to merge spirituality with science and break away from the contemporary paradigm. I would defend Haramein's work with tooth and nail if it had any merit. However, I feel it is important to separate the proverbial "wheat from the chaff" as there are a great many fraudulent individuals within the alternative media these days who want to earn money at the expense of the general public.

Whiskey_Mystic
4th March 2011, 03:08
The one aspect that really raises red flags in my mind (as well as setting my BS alarm off big time) is when people start selling DVDs and the like en masse.


So... you would therefore distrust Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking because they sold products? I invite you to judge Haramein's work based on the content of that work. The enlightened student seperates the teacher from the lesson.

I do indeed judge Haramein's work based on the content, and the content is full of holes and flaws. What people do not understand is that his work is hardy revolutionary. He uses very simple equations to string out numbers that suit his theory. The problem is, his results do not conform to experimental values at all and therefore are wrong.

When the work is as sloppy and flawed as it is, I would refrain from buying his products as it is seems obvious he is a charlatan. Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking are brilliant and their work holds merit. One would not read one of their theoretical papers and come across elementary mathematical flaws.

This man critiques Nassim Haramein's theory objectively and justly:
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/nassim-haramein-fraud-or-sage.html

I am a very spiritual person and I greatly support the work of any scientists who honestly try to merge spirituality with science and break away from the contemporary paradigm. I would defend Haramein's work with tooth and nail if it had any merit. However, I feel it is important to separate the proverbial "wheat from the chaff" as there are a great many fraudulent individuals within the alternative media these days who want to earn money at the expense of the general public.

None of this is what I commented on.

CyRus
4th March 2011, 03:40
The one aspect that really raises red flags in my mind (as well as setting my BS alarm off big time) is when people start selling DVDs and the like en masse.


So... you would therefore distrust Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking because they sold products? I invite you to judge Haramein's work based on the content of that work. The enlightened student seperates the teacher from the lesson.

I do indeed judge Haramein's work based on the content, and the content is full of holes and flaws. What people do not understand is that his work is hardy revolutionary. He uses very simple equations to string out numbers that suit his theory. The problem is, his results do not conform to experimental values at all and therefore are wrong.

When the work is as sloppy and flawed as it is, I would refrain from buying his products as it is seems obvious he is a charlatan. Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking are brilliant and their work holds merit. One would not read one of their theoretical papers and come across elementary mathematical flaws.

This man critiques Nassim Haramein's theory objectively and justly:
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/nassim-haramein-fraud-or-sage.html

I am a very spiritual person and I greatly support the work of any scientists who honestly try to merge spirituality with science and break away from the contemporary paradigm. I would defend Haramein's work with tooth and nail if it had any merit. However, I feel it is important to separate the proverbial "wheat from the chaff" as there are a great many fraudulent individuals within the alternative media these days who want to earn money at the expense of the general public.

None of this is what I commented on.

If that is the case I truly apologize. From what I saw in your response to my post you were questioning whether I would distrust Sagan/Hawking for selling merchandise. I stated what I perceive to be the differences in the works of them and of Haramein. You then claimed that I should judge Haramein's work on the content, and I responded in kind with the reasons I view Haramein's work as utter b*llocks!

If I have failed to respond to your comments I seem to have truly misinterpreted your post, and wonder if you could clarify?

I must also state that I find your previous post rather sarcastic and flippant, you could specify what I didn't respond to rather than a mere one sentence comment.