Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?

[Elixer]

I now also read Haramein's rebuttal to Bob's critisisms. I encourage anybody interested in this particular debate to read it. Though there is some technical stuff in there, it is very readable and understandable.
It also makes clear that Bob misinterprets some of the things said by Nassim. http://theresonanceproject.org/bob.html

Bob: "He also makes it very clear that I'm a mediocre mind and that he is a brilliant thinker – in fact he repeatedly compares himself to Einstein. "
Nassim about Bob: "I would suggest in the future not only that his comments remain professionally based but even that his criticism be constructive and collaborative in nature as I can see that the gentleman has a great mind and a good knowledge base.

Nassim does not compare himself to Einstein. He compares his position to that of Einstein. In other words, he doesn't claim greatness, necessarily, but points more to the fact that Einstein, like Haramein, comes from unconventional background and that this should not be a reason to dissmiss something.
Also, it is well known that there are problems with Einsteins work that need further thought and theorizing. Since they are operating in similar fields, it is only logical and scientifically valid, that Einstein's work be referenced.

Bob's blog contains more of these 'misinterpretations'.
Also, check out the definition of Bob a-thon that Nassim points to, it's very funny:


There were statements made in an earlier post, suggesting that Haramein is no physicist at all. Haramein points out that though not all his work is in the realm of physics, since it extends to spirituality and such, his work in the field of physics certainly is, and is acknowledged to be such by others in that field.

I am not necessarily a 'fan' of Nassim's. The need to speak out in his defense comes from my sensitivity to injustice and my impression that this effort to debunk him is somewhat fraudulent in nature. I say fraudulent, suggesting that indeed there might be malicious intent behind it, rather than objective scientific debate.

[edit to add:] BTW, is there a relation between azurite press and Bob's azureworld?

Great thread.

[Maria Stade]

He is One of many messangers !

[Icecold]

Bob: "He also makes it very clear that I'm a mediocre mind and that he is a brilliant thinker – in fact he repeatedly compares himself to Einstein. "

?????????

The man has a big ego.

[Tenzin]

Posted by Maria Stade (here)
He is One of many messangers !

Who are the rest?? Would like to hear them out too!

[CyRus]

Posted by Elixer (here)
I have now read most of the blog countering Nassim's position. I do not understand all the physics, but the blogger certainly isn't fair as stated in the OP, in the sense of being objective.
His critisisms are full of ad hominem attacks and do seem somewhat ego-driven. It reads to me as if he feels he has some good points, but is not taken serious which has made him dissappointed and frustrated.
It is quite emotional and tries very hard to paint Haramein as a 'Hawaian fruitloop'. It does not seem to be very scientific, in that a scientist would approach this in a much more objective way.

Haramein cannot be as wrong as is suggested in the blog. If he were, he would not have gotten the respect he has. He would not even have been taken serious at all. Yet, he is peer-reviewed and has won at least one fairly prestigious scientific award.
The fact that peer reviews are highly critical does not mean the entire body of work is nonsense. Of course it is going to be critical because his theories are challenging established science. Also the work is not finished.

From the Bob Athon blog:
"His [Haramein's] theory gives the mass of the proton as 885 million tonnes when it's straightforward to measure that it's 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram"
Surely this suggests that they are both looking at something different. The discrepancy is soooo huge (a factor in the order of 10^32, a 1 with 32 zeroes) that it doesn't make sense to critizise him for this number.
If Haramein uses this number that is so obviously at odds with established facts, no scientist would even give the theory a second thought. So there seems to be a misunderstanding here (weight vs mass?).

Beauty, or elegance in theories suggest it might be correct. Isn't that a consequence of Ockham's razor? In structure it certainly holds true. Something that looks good, works well (a well designed sailboat for instance).

The title of this thread is wonderfully provocative.
I would say he is neither sage nor fraud.
Even Bob acknowlegdes that he cannot claim Haramein is a fraud (or manipulative or deceitful), since that would imply knowledge of his intent, that he is purposely trying to deceive people. Bob has had to retract those statements.
Nassim might not be completely right, that would not make him a fraud. And why does it have to be either that, or some holy man coming to save the world, or whatever?
He is (just) an intelligent guy with a very interesting theory and a charming personality.

So, once again, I am inclined to call 'disinfo' on both the Bob Athon blog and this thread's title (no personal offense). I also realize that I can be accused of the same. I assure you though, these are just my opinions.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Let me just comment on a few things:
First off, Haramein has NOT been peer reviewed. His "award" was won at a Computer Systems Conference, and was given by the spectators who are in no position to comment on a physics paper. It was as if you held a presentation on flower arranging at a car conference and you won for best "flower arranging paper". It doesn't make sense..

Also, the rumours from December 6th aren't true either. The American Institute of Physics haven't published his paper, but rather mentioned it on a list of conferences haven taken place. They do this to virtually all contenders, and Haramein is no exception. Another example of the man using misleading truths to deceive his public! It would be better if he just admitted he wasn't peer reviewed than trying to weasel his way into science!

Second, science is not disinfo!! It is a process. If it is established and stood the test of time, it works! No government conspiracy or body can alter that fact. Many scientists are honest people who would accept the theory if the evidence is presented. We must stop believing what we wish and rather believe what makes sense! There are plenty other scientists trying to merge the spiritual and the scientific, but why cling to frauds? It is not a process of it "rings true in science".

[CyRus]

Posted by Ilie Pandia (here)

Posted by Icecold (here)

The article on the blog in the original post is dated: July 22nd 2010.

This in no way detracts from the argument. To claims that something is 'old' and therefore not true is fallacious.

What you say is correct, but it is not what I meant.

The point I wanted to make is that after July 22nd 2010, Nassim Haramein's paper "has passed peer review and is now published at the American Institute of Physics". This it is also a strong point supporting the math and the physics behind Nassim Haramain's work.

Again, as I have pointed out: Not true. He has NOT been peer reviewed by any academic scientist, let me make that clear! This is precisely my "beef" with him if you will, he keeps trying to pass himself off as a scientist! Which he clearly isn't..
I have looked at his mathematics (and his paper the Schwartzchild Proton) and found it to be very, very simple (meaning badly written for a physics paper) and the mathematical formulas he used were high school grade. No heavy calculus, no quantum mechanics...nothing.

[CyRus]

Posted by Elixer (here)
I now also read Haramein's rebuttal to Bob's critisisms. I encourage anybody interested in this particular debate to read it. Though there is some technical stuff in there, it is very readable and understandable.
It also makes clear that Bob misinterprets some of the things said by Nassim. http://theresonanceproject.org/bob.html

Bob: "He also makes it very clear that I'm a mediocre mind and that he is a brilliant thinker – in fact he repeatedly compares himself to Einstein. "
Nassim about Bob: "I would suggest in the future not only that his comments remain professionally based but even that his criticism be constructive and collaborative in nature as I can see that the gentleman has a great mind and a good knowledge base.

Nassim does not compare himself to Einstein. He compares his position to that of Einstein. In other words, he doesn't claim greatness, necessarily, but points more to the fact that Einstein, like Haramein, comes from unconventional background and that this should not be a reason to dissmiss something.
Also, it is well known that there are problems with Einsteins work that need further thought and theorizing. Since they are operating in similar fields, it is only logical and scientifically valid, that Einstein's work be referenced.

Bob's blog contains more of these 'misinterpretations'.
Also, check out the definition of Bob a-thon that Nassim points to, it's very funny:


There were statements made in an earlier post, suggesting that Haramein is no physicist at all. Haramein points out that though not all his work is in the realm of physics, since it extends to spirituality and such, his work in the field of physics certainly is, and is acknowledged to be such by others in that field.

I am not necessarily a 'fan' of Nassim's. The need to speak out in his defense comes from my sensitivity to injustice and my impression that this effort to debunk him is somewhat fraudulent in nature. I say fraudulent, suggesting that indeed there might be malicious intent behind it, rather than objective scientific debate.

[edit to add:] BTW, is there a relation between azurite press and Bob's azureworld?

Great thread.

I have also seen Haramein's response, and he came off very badly! What laymen fail to understand, is that Haramein tries to sound scientific! He throws around "sciency" sounding words which will captivate and bedazzle the unweary, but to people who have studied even a bit of science one realizes he is talking gobbledeegook.
He is not taken seriously by scientists at all, and as I say, he may be a good philosopher (or storyteller) but he is no physicist by any stretch of the imagination. His "work" in physics is rubbish, it is full of flaws and questionable mathematics and therefore the fact that he even has the gall to call himself a physicist is deluding his audience. Fact.

[eaglespirit]

Posted by Tenzin (here)
Oh, neither a Fraud nor a Sage. A messenger rather. His advice to us all starts around clip 36 as follows:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xyTjSr9D9VU

2:34 - "There is very little time left." The whole 8 hours, and there was his subtle but clear warning to us all.

Great link and targeting, Tenzin, wishing you well!

Interesting "debates" that go on here at Avalon.
The bottomline is full self-responsibility and taking action on what it is you are here to do to help the transition of humanity now...right now.
Be "the Fool" (full of wisdom) and jump the cliff...and go, go, go with Your Own Promptings!

...and try to stop tearing other people apart and down...even in subtle ways...just my humble opinion. Use any info you come across, to the best of your ability, to upgrade Your Own Calling!

[Ilie Pandia]

Posted by CyRus (here)

Posted by Ilie Pandia (here)

Posted by Icecold (here)

The article on the blog in the original post is dated: July 22nd 2010.

This in no way detracts from the argument. To claims that something is 'old' and therefore not true is fallacious.

What you say is correct, but it is not what I meant.

The point I wanted to make is that after July 22nd 2010, Nassim Haramein's paper "has passed peer review and is now published at the American Institute of Physics". This it is also a strong point supporting the math and the physics behind Nassim Haramain's work.

Again, as I have pointed out: Not true. He has NOT been peer reviewed by any academic scientist, let me make that clear! This is precisely my "beef" with him if you will, he keeps trying to pass himself off as a scientist! Which he clearly isn't..
I have looked at his mathematics (and his paper the Schwartzchild Proton) and found it to be very, very simple (meaning badly written for a physics paper) and the mathematical formulas he used were high school grade. No heavy calculus, no quantum mechanics...nothing.

My statement is based on his paper being listed on this page. I am not 100% sure what it means, but that page says "American Institute of Physics". However I do not think anyone can publish stuff on that page... so it does give some credibility to Nassim.

"He has NOT been peer reviewed by any academic scientist, let me make that clear!" <-- Why do you say that? Based on what?

[CyRus]

Posted by Ilie Pandia (here)

Posted by CyRus (here)

Posted by Ilie Pandia (here)

Posted by Icecold (here)

The article on the blog in the original post is dated: July 22nd 2010.

This in no way detracts from the argument. To claims that something is 'old' and therefore not true is fallacious.

What you say is correct, but it is not what I meant.

The point I wanted to make is that after July 22nd 2010, Nassim Haramein's paper "has passed peer review and is now published at the American Institute of Physics". This it is also a strong point supporting the math and the physics behind Nassim Haramain's work.

Again, as I have pointed out: Not true. He has NOT been peer reviewed by any academic scientist, let me make that clear! This is precisely my "beef" with him if you will, he keeps trying to pass himself off as a scientist! Which he clearly isn't..
I have looked at his mathematics (and his paper the Schwartzchild Proton) and found it to be very, very simple (meaning badly written for a physics paper) and the mathematical formulas he used were high school grade. No heavy calculus, no quantum mechanics...nothing.

My statement is based on his paper being listed on this page. I am not 100% sure what it means, but that page says "American Institute of Physics". However I do not think anyone can publish stuff on that page... so it does give some credibility to Nassim.

"He has NOT been peer reviewed by any academic scientist, let me make that clear!" <-- Why do you say that? Based on what?

http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/...72533708138673

Bob's response to this claim:
"OK, let's be honest here instead of randomly pretending (because it happens to suit someone's view) that the American Institute of Physics have done or said anything that would give Haramein any legitimacy or his theories any validity.

Haramein's "physics" paper was not judged by the American Institute of Physics. It's not been accepted by a scientific journal – far from it. It was published by AIP as part of a conference proceedings, which is nothing more than a record of what happened at a conference.

As you can see on the AIP conference proceedings site, they will happily publish the proceedings of any conference with a science or engineering theme. The only review their publications team carry out is an editorial one.

The reason Haramein's paper is referred to as "peer reviewed" is because it was chosen as best of one of the categories by people at this particular conference. I can say with confidence that they were not physicists – at least not physicists with any experience or familiarity with the nature of protons or black holes or any of the other subjects Haramein misused in his paper. If you think you have evidence to the contrary, give me names and I'll write to them and ask them what the hell they were thinking.

They were participants at a computing systems conference (the topic was "Computing Anticipatory Systems", a novel branch of systems theory and artificial intelligence). The head of the awarding committee is Daniel Dubois, who founded computing anticipatory systems. He has made clear that he wants to see it used in physics (along with many other disciplines) and has done a little work in that direction. But he is not a physicist. Also Haramein's paper doesn't even attempt to employ anything resembling computing anticipatory systems. (These matters were also discussed in this earlier comment.)


I dread to think what criteria were used to select Haramein's paper, but, having been to a few conferences, I imagine his charismatic and lively style was a refreshing change from many of the presentations there. This is regardless of whether or not, as non-physicists, the "peers" had a clue what he was talking about or how ridiculous it was.

Their job was not to put the paper through a rigorous process of refereeing as would be required for acceptance by a scientific journal. Their job was to choose a paper from the bunch in front of them right there and then.

If you still think his appearance in some obscure conference proceedings gives any validation whatsoever to anything Haramein has said, I'd like to hear that argument! It would have to answer one hell of a lot of very serious questions.

(I'd also like to know why – apart from pure prejudice – anyone would choose to accept this AIP appearance as relevant while simultaneously dismissing the hundreds of thousands of articles that actually have passed rigorous peer review as not worth taking seriously because it's "the mainstream". Unless you have evidence that the entire peer review process is corrupt and a massive conspiracy from start to finish, it really doesn't make a great deal of sense. But that's another matter.)"

[CyRus]

Also, a yet another comment on Haramein.
I visited the Resonance Project page on Facebook out of curiosity, in order to view (what I was expecting) to be interesting debate. What I saw, however, was shocking! It was almost like a cult, with Haramein as the be all and end all.
I saw a couple of what you might refer to as skeptics, asking genuine questions and pointing out holes in Haramein's theories (as one does in a scientific process) and Haramein could not answer sufficiently. After awhile it appeared he got frustrated, and subsequently banned the people asking questions and deleted their comments. Moreover, he never answered any technical questions himself, he left this to the actual scientists on his Resonance Project group. (Who I can only assume are either on his payroll or deluded/charmed by his "ravishing" personality)

[Ilie Pandia]

Cyrus,

You last reply makes sense! Conference logs do not mean peer review .

So I back off to "I do not know" position. Nassim's work (flawed or not) is an important piece in my journey so far.

[K626]

I love listiening to Haramein stuff late at night on headphones as I slowly lull off to sleep.

IMO most of conventional physics is flawed and clearly Harremein is a creative thinker which leaves a lot of space inbetween, hence a concrete approach will always break down his work...But it really doesn't need to mainly beacause as far as I can observe there aren't many rules in science that haven't changed and keep changing as we go forward.

The speed of light constant is clearly wrong.
The Big bang theory is clearly wrong.
And as Hawking proved only recently there are escape vectors against the massive pull of a black hole (Hawking radiation).


Things aren't what they seem and as always it is strange that it turns out that the universe and how we see it keeps changing as our language and science investigating it changes.

Klabs

[CyRus]

Posted by K626 (here)
I love listiening to Haramein stuff late at night on headphones as I slowly lull off to sleep.

IMO most of conventional physics is flawed and clearly Harremein is a creative thinker which leaves a lot of space inbetween, hence a concrete approach will always break down his work...But it really doesn't need to mainly beacause as far as I can observe there aren't many rules in science that haven't changed and keep changing as we go forward.

The speed of light constant is clearly wrong.
The Big bang theory is clearly wrong.
And as Hawking proved only recently there are escape vectors against the massive pull of a black hole (Hawking radiation).


Things aren't what they seem and as always it is strange that it turns out that the universe and how we see it keeps changing as our language and science investigating it changes.

Klabs

He is a creative thinker alright, but not a physicist. To be a physicist doesn't revolve around making up theories, any old geezer can do that. First and foremost it involves developing a hypothesis, basing a mathematical framework around that hypothesis and then designing experiments to DISPROVE the hypothesis. The reason one must focus on disproving a hypothesis rather than proving it is because attempting to prove one's own hypothesis would entail a degree of bias. If you fail to disprove the hypothesis, other physicists (peer review) will then try to replicate and tighten your experiments and attempt to disprove the hypothesis. If this fails, the hypothesis turns into a theory and is accepted in the scientific community.

As far as I am aware, Haramein has not attempted any experiments to support his hypothesis and therefore is not a physicist and his ideas are worthless. (To science at least, food for thought maybe..)

If you are really interested in cutting edge scientific research by real maverick/ostracized scientists, I would suggest this site: http://www.skeptiko.com/
These are seriously interesting interviews from skeptics and spiritual scientists who discuss paranormal phenomenon, near-death research etc. (And the hard-skeptics come up short very often)

Thanks for the input,

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Ilie Pandia (here)
My statement is based on his paper being listed on this page. I am not 100% sure what it means, but that page says "American Institute of Physics". However I do not think anyone can publish stuff on that page... so it does give some credibility to Nassim.

"He has NOT been peer reviewed by any academic scientist, let me make that clear!" <-- Why do you say that? Based on what?

The AIP publishes conference proceedings. That is their commercial business. You can get a sense of this from their web page at http://proceedings.aip.org/organizers/publish_with_aip

You could hold a conference with your next door neighbor to discuss barking dogs, and I presume AIP would publish the proceedings for their standard fee.

The particular conference CASYS `09: Ninth International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems at which Nassim gave his paper does not really peer review in the traditional formal peer review sense by a major physics journal. Nassim was provided a room and microphone and gave his talk. He got some "best paper" award in some sub-category. His audience almost certainly (based in part on the subject matter of that conference) was not competent to judge the scientific merit of his work. That was the "peer review" process. Then his paper was included in the conference proceedings. (P.S. -- The above was written from two month old recollections. See further the note http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/...72533708138673 for details of the nature of this so called peer reviewed process.) (P.P.S. -- I see that CyRus already quoted the contents of this link, above in Post #30.)

You can get a sense of what other papers of dubious scientific merit show up at CASYS conferences in the post at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...6&postcount=11

See further my debunking of Nassim in a post I made in January on some Charles thread ... Post #458. That post includes links to three other more careful debunking posts by others.

He gives good talk, and may well connect with some important spiritual ideas that I am not competent to discuss. But his physics is an enormous crock.

[CyRus]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Ilie Pandia (here)
My statement is based on his paper being listed on this page. I am not 100% sure what it means, but that page says "American Institute of Physics". However I do not think anyone can publish stuff on that page... so it does give some credibility to Nassim.

"He has NOT been peer reviewed by any academic scientist, let me make that clear!" <-- Why do you say that? Based on what?

The AIP publishes conference proceedings. That is their commercial business. You can get a sense of this from their web page at http://proceedings.aip.org/organizers/publish_with_aip

You could hold a conference with your next door neighbor to discuss barking dogs, and I presume AIP would publish the proceedings for their standard fee.

The particular conference CASYS `09: Ninth International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems at which Nassim gave his paper does not really peer review in the traditional formal peer review sense by a major physics journal. Nassim was provided a room and microphone and gave his talk. He got some "best paper" award in some sub-category. His audience almost certainly (based in part on the subject matter of that conference) was not competent to judge the scientific merit of his work. That was the "peer review" process. Then his paper was included in the conference proceedings.

You can get a sense of what other papers of dubious scientific merit show up at CASYS conferences in the post at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...6&postcount=11

See further my debunking of Nassim in a post I made in January on some Charles thread ... Post #458. That post includes links to three other more careful debunking posts by others.

He gives good talk, and may well connect with some important spiritual ideas that I am not competent to discuss. But his physics is an enormous crock.

Excellent, very well put indeed!
I salute you fellow Avalonian...

[charlesfrith]

Peer review = sponsored group think. Nassim is fresh.

[MariaDine]

Posted by shiva777 (here)
Haramein has lots of good info...much of it based on the distorted geometry of our hologram...so it leads to misleading conclusions in many instances.

The fibonacci and golden mean,for example,are not NATURAL laws...they are the manipulation of our hologram that have lead to parasitism and the disconnect from Eternal Living Light conciousness...to get some idea of what I am talking about,scroll down about a quarter of the way down and open your minds to a whole new understanding of physics

http://www.azuritepress.com/New%20Co..._summary_2.php

it is no accident that we were disconnected and it is no accident that we are being reconnected to TRULY SACRED GEOMETRY

Hello Shiva !

I have read the text in the link you posted. Nothing of what is written makes any sense to me. Maybe if you could find a better text that explains the situation and the purposes...???
If the info is not clear, how can people work with it ?

Namasté

[jorr lundstrom]

I love this so called discussion. Most members seem one day to be in total agreement

that education is BS and the next day the lack of that education can make you

a fraud. But of course only if you say something. I think the inquisition had very

interesting ways of working and it seems as that tradition can be handy even today.

But of course it can be seen as good entertainment. And the whole world is

watching, just like the games at Colloseum a long time ago.

[Dale]

I took a moment to view a presentation by Mr. Haramein. From my perspective, he is neither fraud nor sage. He seems to be a man earnestly attempting to make sense of a vast, vast world.

With regard to his idea of the Universe being similar to a fractal system, his reasoning is astute. However, his opinions and theories concerning the Big Bang theory are less thorough.

He's an interesting fellow I'd enjoy having a dinner conversation with, but rationally, some of his claims do seem a bit lofty. I feel the Universe is far too grand for our small, human brains to comprehend. Far too intricate and timeless.