Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?

[CyRus]

Posted by Tenzin (here)
"The Earth was round." This WAS absolutely absurd then.

Anyway, nothing has been officially proven right or wrong at the moment about Nassim's theories. So let's see how it goes.

I believe both Paul and myself have provided convincing evidence that should wholeheartedly disprove Haramein. If you disagree with this and have a reasonable counter-argument I would really appreciate hearing it.

[CyRus]

Posted by Pilgrim (here)

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".

Can you propose some of them? Or, if you can elaborate more on that?

Second, science is not disinfo!! It is a process. If it is established and stood the test of time, it works!

It makes sense for me.

No government conspiracy or body can alter that fact.

I am not sure with that one...sorry..

We must stop believing what we wish and rather believe what makes sense!

I like the begining We must stop believing what we wish and this ending and rather believe what makes sense! I would change and rather believe what It is...

Thanx for interesting thread:-) Cheers,P.

There are a great many scientists who have a spiritual outlook on life, but as for those who are actively researching this area: (the ones I can mention of the top of my head, there are undoubtedly many more)
- Dean Radin (researching aspects of Psi)
- Rupert Sheldrake (developed a theory of morphic resonance, and was unfairly ostracized by the scientific community)
- Bruce Lipton (theory that genes and DNA can be altered by beliefs)
- Amit Goswami (quantum physicist who believes conciousness is the ground of all being)
- Rick Strassman (research on DMT) ...

[Chicodoodoo]

Posted by Paul (here)
I dismiss Nassim for speaking utter nonsense of immense proportions, and clearly and repeatedly using imposing sounding mumbo-jumbo to disguise the absolute absurdity of his "theory."

Physics is not music. You cannot judge it by how it "sounds."

I “hear” a lot of emotion in your dismissal of Nassim, Paul. I am reminded of the arguments in Bill Ryan’s thread “Science is really a religion”. I argued there that science is not a religion, but the way humans practice it, with human passion and emotion, often leads to it becoming a religion.

If you take what we currently believe about physics as gospel, new discoveries or new perspectives can easily appear absurd. Recent physics itself is absurd. The Big Bang theory is like having a few frames from a long movie and claiming to know what occurred at the beginning of the film. Just as we find the beliefs of physicists from 300 years ago to be absurd, so too will the physics of today be judged in 300 years. In fact, if real ET-human scientific exchange is realized (or revealed), physics may become unrecognizable in less time than that when judged by our current standards.

As we have seen many times in our own history, one may not be justified to simply dismiss a new perspective by finding claimed absurdities. If I were to do that, I might dismiss the entire debunking of Nassim because of one misinterpretation. When Nassim concluded one explanation with, “That's why when you look up in the sky at night, it's black", the debunkers jump all over him. I “heard” that comment as an attempt at humor that was lost on much of the audience. Could it have been a joke? We’re dealing with cultural and linguistic differences with Nassim and not just differences of physics perspective.

I won’t dismiss the possibility that Nassim might turn out to be a charlatan, but I’m seeing more evidence against it than for it. You see the opposite. We may both be wrong.

[ThePythonicCow]

If you take what we currently believe about physics as gospel, new discoveries or new perspectives can easily appear absurd. Recent physics itself is absurd.

Are you saying that since some things that seem absurd in some way to some people turn out to be right, therefore none of us should dismiss anything that seems absurd to us?

That's an absurd argument .

You can not do physics with such generic rules of thumb.

You actually have to look at the concepts, the numbers, the physics model being presented.

Any physics that tells me each atomic nucleus in my body has the mass of 100 billion galaxies is physics for which I have no use.

Any physicist who tries to slip such a model past my conscious analysis by using words that sound familiar, but who avoids clearly presenting the essential concepts of their model, is a charlatan, confused, or worse.

[CyRus]

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)

Posted by Paul (here)
I dismiss Nassim for speaking utter nonsense of immense proportions, and clearly and repeatedly using imposing sounding mumbo-jumbo to disguise the absolute absurdity of his "theory."

Physics is not music. You cannot judge it by how it "sounds."

I “hear” a lot of emotion in your dismissal of Nassim, Paul. I am reminded of the arguments in Bill Ryan’s thread “Science is really a religion”. I argued there that science is not a religion, but the way humans practice it, with human passion and emotion, often leads to it becoming a religion.

If you take what we currently believe about physics as gospel, new discoveries or new perspectives can easily appear absurd. Recent physics itself is absurd. The Big Bang theory is like having a few frames from a long movie and claiming to know what occurred at the beginning of the film. Just as we find the beliefs of physicists from 300 years ago to be absurd, so too will the physics of today be judged in 300 years. In fact, if real ET-human scientific exchange is realized (or revealed), physics may become unrecognizable in less time than that when judged by our current standards.

As we have seen many times in our own history, one may not be justified to simply dismiss a new perspective by finding claimed absurdities. If I were to do that, I might dismiss the entire debunking of Nassim because of one misinterpretation. When Nassim concluded one explanation with, “That's why when you look up in the sky at night, it's black", the debunkers jump all over him. I “heard” that comment as an attempt at humor that was lost on much of the audience. Could it have been a joke? We’re dealing with cultural and linguistic differences with Nassim and not just differences of physics perspective.

I won’t dismiss the possibility that Nassim might turn out to be a charlatan, but I’m seeing more evidence against it than for it. You see the opposite. We may both be wrong.

Isaac Newton's theories are almost 350 years old now, and they are still very accurate when utilized in our "normal" three-dimensional environment. They are not considered absurd by any means, and while recent physics have expanded and extrapolated those theories to model more extreme conditions, they are still accurate. I agree with you that we undoubtedly lack some fundamental understanding of the universe, but the physical laws that are in place today are probably correct, they just need expanding.

The problem with Haramein is that he rejects these facts, and just makes up his own theory based on no evidence at all and seems to disregard the gargantuan elephant in the room, namely the fact that his theories are not consistent with our reality.

[greybeard]

I must admit that I am in ignorance of the subject but to the lay man and my interest being mainly in spiritual truth I found facinating in the video science=energy=God
the statement that yogis knew about the existence of vortex in an atom.
Another person I have listened to who has interesting theories is David Sereda interview on coast to coast.
He is saying that there is a speed faster than light.

Nassim interested me in saying that th entir universe pulses in and out of existence every mil second and that infinity is exactly that in that the atom once believe to be the smallest thing can be divided on and on and on there is no end to smallness (my words)

Is any of this confirmed?
please excuse my ignorance.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=sNgUd...layer_embedded


Thats a link to the David Sereda interview

ch

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Nassim interested me in saying that the entire universe pulses in and out of existence every mil second and that infinity is exactly that in that the atom once believe to be the smallest thing can be divided on and on and on there is no end to smallness (my words)

Is any of this confirmed?

In my world (which seems to have only modest overlap with your's, greybeard ) these are not only NOT confirmed, they are more examples of what I find to be absurd nonsense in Nassim's statements.

[An Cailleach]

Posted by Pilgrim (here)

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".

Can you propose some of them? Or, if you can elaborate more on that?

This man is one of 'em!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=KdvxnajpZ3o

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lZb2GthmpSk

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=q2MrtZxH2Q0

[Chicodoodoo]

Posted by CyRus (here)
Isaac Newton's theories are almost 350 years old now, and they are still very accurate when utilized in our "normal" three-dimensional environment.

Yes, some work in physics has withstood the test of time, but other work has not.

The problem with Haramein is that he rejects these facts, and just makes up his own theory based on no evidence at all and seems to disregard the gargantuan elephant in the room, namely the fact that his theories are not consistent with our reality.

That's not exactly what I see going on with Nassim's work. It reminds me of Einstein's "thought experiments" that led him to his theory of relativity. If Einstein had instead been thinking out loud in a public forum, the scientists of his day might have ridiculed such absurd conjecture.

Also keep in mind that our "reality" is actually just a working model of reality that changes as new information is discovered.

One of the things that really intrigues me about Nassim's perspective is his development of sacred geometry. I always wondered what the fascination was with sacred geometry by the "ancient masters". It didn't make sense that scientists today pay absolutely no attention to it. Could it have been a lingering remnant of a very ancient and different scientific perspective that was ET in origin?

Yeah, I know -- that's absurd. But stranger things have happened. Truth is often stranger than fiction.

[ThePythonicCow]

CyRus - I have found myself having to remember on this thread what it would be like if I went on one of the more spiritual threads here. My current spiritual awareness, at least that I am conscious of, is rather modest, to put it politely.

Let's say for example that Greybeard found some self-proclaimed spiritual guru to be a crock of baloney. Let's say I found that guru to be intriguing, and resisted all Greybeard's explanations of why this guru was a fraud.

Given that my current level of spiritual awareness is either (1) much less than Greybeard's, or at least (2) much different than his, my attempts to justify the possible value of said guru would likely not persuade Greybeard.

The nature of physics, as a worthwhile way of thinking and understanding the physical universe, grounded in mathematics and logic, independent of any particular model (Newtonian, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, whatever) is not a way of thinking that many people have a strong instinct for. Discerning whether Nassim has value is a difficult task, if one does not have a strong sense of what is "good" physics.

[greybeard]

I agree Paul.
I would point you towards teachers who are all saying similar and have had similar experiences then I would let you find out for yourself.
Wish it was as simple as 2+2=4
Even Science is no longer only 2+2 The conscious Universe by Stapps?

Consciousness collapses the wave, seems things are not allways mathematics.
The experiment viewed is changed it seems.
I dont know and thats the truth.

Regards Chris

[Elixer]

The critics here have obviously made up their mind with regard to Haramein's work, so there is little point trying to convince them otherwise. So I am not trying.

You have made some points, but overall I don't find them "convincing", just as I didn't find Bob Athon's points and presentation convincing, or "fair". Your arguments, like his, seem laden with emotion, as was pointed out earlier.

Saying something is nonsense, doesn't make it so, even if it is said with absolute certainty. Saying it repeatedly doesn't help either.
Many many people, do not consider it nonsense and there are smart ones among them. It makes sense to them at some level.

If it is complete nonsense to you, couldn't that mean that you are misunderstanding or not understanding it somehow?
If you speak to me in a language I don't understand, it would be nonsense to me, but that doesn't mean it acutally is.

The repeated point about the weight/mass of protons being 'ridiculously' higher than the accepted value, suggests it comes from or with a different concept, framework or paradigm.
Haramein mentions somewhere that all these black holes at the centre of things (including protons), are connected. All is one. Not a scientifically accepted notion (yet).
From that perspective the claim might make sense.
If I understood it correctly, this is not an assumption or postulate either, but more like a conclusion or consequence of the theory.

In Haramein's rebuttal to Bob Athon, he also mentions the way science handles this problem connected with protons sticking together in the nucleus, despite the electrical repulsion etc.
Isn't it acknowledged even in physics to be a problem that needs work?
Nassim says something like, science postulates some new force that they endow with the exact properties required to solve this problem. How sane is that? Is that "good physics"? You do agree that this is how it is dealt with, right? Maybe not, in which case, as short explanation would be appreciated.

And why all the name calling? When I see him speak, it is clear to me that he is passionate about his work and believes in it. And it's not like he's getting rich off it either. Frauds and Charlatans deceive on purpose. I do not see him that way. But I might be too gullible, or choose to believe what I want to believe, which might be why I keep dissing Asha's work.

Earlier, I called 'disinformation'. This was not regarding the science, which I think was someone's conclusion (though I may have misunderstood). I was referring to the methods used to bring certain points across, by Bob...and others.

[Jayke]

Posted by Paul (here)
The nature of physics, as a worthwhile way of thinking and understanding the physical universe, grounded in mathematics and logic, independent of any particular model (Newtonian, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, whatever) is not a way of thinking that many people have a strong instinct for. Discerning whether Nassim has value is a difficult task, if one does not have a strong sense of what is "good" physics.

Good physics built on shaky foundations is still going to cause the whole house to come tumbling down at some point. until modern physics comes up with a way to unite the quantuam world with electro-magnetism or until they find that ever elusive God particle... Its still just yet another incomplete system in my mind, dressed up in fancy mathematics to convince people its the only way the world must work.

nassim on the other hand, based on everything we know about ancient knowledge and mystisicm, would appear to have found the solid foundations/principles, that would keep the house stable at whatever level of awareness you look at things from. I'm prepared to give him time to build the rest of his house, flesh it out with the physics and the maths, maybe he hasn't quite got it right yet...maybe he has but people are just too invested in old ways of thinking to move out of their current paradigm.

Neither ideology has managed to convince me to the point where I'd completely buy into their system so much that I'd shut myself off from other possibilities, which leaves me free to contine walking the middle line and use what works from either side of the equation while I'm strolling along this lovely little path called life.

[CyRus]

Posted by Paul (here)
CyRus - I have found myself having to remember on this thread what it would be like if I went on one of the more spiritual threads here. My current spiritual awareness, at least that I am conscious of, is rather modest, to put it politely.

Let's say for example that Greybeard found some self-proclaimed spiritual guru to be a crock of baloney. Let's say I found that guru to be intriguing, and resisted all Greybeard's explanations of why this guru was a fraud.

Given that my current level of spiritual awareness is either (1) much less than Greybeard's, or at least (2) much different than his, my attempts to justify the possible value of said guru would likely not persuade Greybeard.

The nature of physics, as a worthwhile way of thinking and understanding the physical universe, grounded in mathematics and logic, independent of any particular model (Newtonian, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, whatever) is not a way of thinking that many people have a strong instinct for. Discerning whether Nassim has value is a difficult task, if one does not have a strong sense of what is "good" physics.

Very intriguing point indeed! I had not thought of it that way, however, I am aware I am young and naive.

It is very frustrating to see people swallow this with hook line and sinker though, but I am beginning to see that I am fighting a losing battle. If people want to spend their hard earned cash on Delegate Programs/Lectures or DVDs I suppose it is their prerogative, even if it is complete nonsense.

[CyRus]

Posted by Elixer (here)
The critics here have obviously made up their mind with regard to Haramein's work, so there is little point trying to convince them otherwise. So I am not trying.

You have made some points, but overall I don't find them "convincing", just as I didn't find Bob Athon's points and presentation convincing, or "fair". Your arguments, like his, seem laden with emotion, as was pointed out earlier.

Saying something is nonsense, doesn't make it so, even if it is said with absolute certainty. Saying it repeatedly doesn't help either.
Many many people, do not consider it nonsense and there are smart ones among them. It makes sense to them at some level.

If it is complete nonsense to you, couldn't that mean that you are misunderstanding or not understanding it somehow?
If you speak to me in a language I don't understand, it would be nonsense to me, but that doesn't mean it acutally is.

The repeated point about the weight/mass of protons being 'ridiculously' higher than the accepted value, suggests it comes from or with a different concept, framework or paradigm.
Haramein mentions somewhere that all these black holes at the centre of things (including protons), are connected. All is one. Not a scientifically accepted notion (yet).
From that perspective the claim might make sense.
If I understood it correctly, this is not an assumption or postulate either, but more like a conclusion or consequence of the theory.

In Haramein's rebuttal to Bob Athon, he also mentions the way science handles this problem connected with protons sticking together in the nucleus, despite the electrical repulsion etc.
Isn't it acknowledged even in physics to be a problem that needs work?
Nassim says something like, science postulates some new force that they endow with the exact properties required to solve this problem. How sane is that? Is that "good physics"? You do agree that this is how it is dealt with, right? Maybe not, in which case, as short explanation would be appreciated.

And why all the name calling? When I see him speak, it is clear to me that he is passionate about his work and believes in it. And it's not like he's getting rich off it either. Frauds and Charlatans deceive on purpose. I do not see him that way. But I might be too gullible, or choose to believe what I want to believe, which might be why I keep dissing Asha's work.

Earlier, I called 'disinformation'. This was not regarding the science, which I think was someone's conclusion (though I may have misunderstood). I was referring to the methods used to bring certain points across, by Bob...and others.

Sorry, but I find this mildly insulting. What gives you the right to say I am misunderstood when you have no idea of what this man is speaking about? He is a talented speaker, he has charm and I can understand how he can "gain a following", but you must understand that this isn't enough.
His theories are nonsense! You say that the fact that the mass of protons being a 'ridiculously' high number suggests it comes from a different paradigm, but how can you account for the fact that when you step on the scale, it doesn't show you to be the same weight as Mount Everest?
This should be enough to debunk this particular point entirely...

Might I ask why you have so much faith in Haramein (albeit physics and science are not matters of faith)? It seems to me your belief system is being threatened, and you are reacting in much the same way I would expect a Christian fundamentalist would react if I threatened the validity of the Bible.
Haramein is not the be all and end all of spirituality. I for one would appreciate someone trying to help me wasting money on nonsense, and exposing a charlatan for what he is, thereby paving the way for others who are more credible and honest.

I have no doubt he believes in what he does, it is the precise reason I find him deluded rather than an outright fraud. He obviously has no respect for education, and he generally thinks that he has come up with new ideas that are groundbreaking, and a breakthrough for physics.
Do you have any idea as to what a black hole is? Because I believe if you did you might realize that the idea of a black hole within a proton is ridiculous! From wikipedia: "A black hole is a region of space from which nothing, not even light, can escape. The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass will deform spacetime to form a black hole. Around a black hole there is an undetectable surface called an event horizon that marks the point of no return. It is called "black" because it absorbs all the light that hits the horizon, reflecting nothing, just like a perfect black body in thermodynamics.[1] Quantum mechanics predicts that black holes emit radiation like a black body with a finite temperature. This temperature is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole, making it difficult to observe this radiation for black holes of stellar mass or greater."

You understand that the mass is enormous. Haramein states that protons are actually black holes. We have trillions upon trillions of protons within our body, so how come we do not collapse space-time itself?

[Elixer]

CyRus. Didn't mean for you to feel insulted, mate. Sorry about that.
I wasn't stating, but asking if it was possible. I guess it isn't...
It's not my beliefs that are threatened here...
Firstly because I am not necessarily a fan of his, as stated and secondly because I don't think these arguments make a compelling case against him, which was mainly what I was trying to say.
So there is no threat here. I have no stake in this.
This wasn't personal. Why make it so?

Now that we are there though...allow me to retort and please excuse any perceived sarcasm.
I believe I have the right to say what I said. This is an open forum, is it not? Again, I did not intend insult.
Did you mean to say "I am misunderstood"? Or was that a (telling?) mistake?
How can you claim that I have no idea what he's talking about? I most certainly do have an idea about it. Whether it is the right idea is another matter.
And are you then seriously making this scale example? Seriously?
How can you infer I have faith in his work? I am open minded towards it, is all and think there is great potential there. But I don't know that he's right. I do believe that he is sincere though.
Are you seriously comparing me to a fundamentalist? Do you read what you are saying? Have you read any of what I've been saying?
If anything, I hold that we cannot know anything for certain, but can merely believe. In the face of such uncertainty, it makes no sense to actually fight for your beliefs.
No one knows the exact nature of black holes. Any definition is subject to change as our knowledge progresses, so falling back on a definition that Nassim is overtly challenging, well...

You assume some kind of cetainty in your position while it seems clear that it needs some revision.
You are using disinfo tactics, whether you know it or not. Here is that link again. Of the 25 methods, you are using at least 15. As if you are actually trying to, but that couldn't be, could it? Maybe it's time to use the last one on that list? (kidding, sorry).

I don't mean any disrespect, but do believe in honesty and I am sensitive to injustice, so I felt compelled to respond, but I must say I doubt whether I should.
I might be too gullible...

Please take this post as seriously as you intended yours.

[ThePythonicCow]

Easy CyRus and Elixer. Let us keep our sights focused on the matters at hand, not each other .

This is not an entirely open forum. When I sense too much squabbling between members, I take off my amateur physicists hat and put on my amateur forum administrator hat.

[StateOfTheHeart]

Posted by Paul (here)
Notice that he is suggesting that the entire mass of 100 billion galaxies (the estimated size of the entire known Universe) is crammed into each and every atomic nucleus of each atom in the Universe.

This is absolutely, totally, mind-bogglingly absurd.

I dismiss Nassim for speaking utter nonsense of immense proportions, and clearly and repeatedly using imposing sounding mumbo-jumbo to disguise the absolute absurdity of his "theory."

I definitely appreciate what you're saying regarding the mathematics of Haramein's work; he is presenting in the physics arena and so it is only sensible that his theories have the relevant proof and stand the truth-test of mathematics, free of spiritual/personal beliefs/desires and pretty words/concepts. As you've stated, your particular bent is scientific, not spiritual (so mainly based around logic); and this is very useful when considering new theories of our physical world+... but I wonder... Now I'm not trying to validate Haramein's work with mystical poetry, though I wonder if skeptics might be lacking mystical insight required to even consider Nassim's theory.

Have you heard the famous words of William Blake? He wasn't a dummy.

Posted by William Blake
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

------

Posted by Paul (here)
Physics is not music. You cannot judge it by how it "sounds."

One might debate that. Do you dig the work of Michio Kaku? Science and Music (I know I'm taking your words slightly out of context there, but still relevant, IMO)

------

I'm not trying to, necessarily, promote Haramein's theory as I, most likely, agree with you regarding the actual physics behind his work. He self-admittedly has spent most of this life rebelling and having fun - with his head in the clouds (skiing) or submersed in water (scuba diving) or rock-climbing and all sorts of crazy stuff - not involving physics textbooks. So, it is only logical that his presented theory will go against orthodox science and may be lacking in mathematical basis; but that said, the man is a naturalist (perhaps the wrong term but by that I mean, he spends a lot of time in Nature, observing its operation)... so by the same token, I wonder if some theoretical physics may sometimes lack a, more necessary, holistic understanding of nature - an understanding which is hard to grasp under a sterilised, more material, reductionist model as produced in many scientific laboratories.

I don't have a great desire to check Nassim's theory from a mathematical POV as I enjoy it as a story; he's a charming presenter and I think he brings some new-ish ideas and positive energy to the table. I hope some (unified field) theories as beautiful, at least in concept, as Nassim's make their way to scientific acceptance.

------

...And just to annoy ya...

~*~

~*~

hehe, only kidding, that's not for annoyance purposes.

[Chicodoodoo]

Posted by CyRus (here)
We have trillions upon trillions of protons within our body, so how come we do not collapse space-time itself?

Could it have something to do with our poor understanding of everything, including black holes? I know we all think we are really smart, but are we? If there is a black hole at the center of a galaxy, why isn't everything in the galaxy eventually sucked in? Why is there so much matter near the center of a galaxy where the black hole is most likely to pull it in? Do black holes have life-cycles, or are they in some state of equilibrium? Do we even understand space-time? How about space? Or time? Or anything?

I've been a great fan of physics all my life, but I've come to realize that the practice of science can only be as advanced as the minds of the practitioners. We have no idea how advanced our minds are. We give ourselves lots and lots of credit, because we compare our minds to those of other life forms on our own planet. That is an extremely limited comparison set, and to a large degree, we have no idea what goes on in those minds, or how a mind even works. And yet we think we know, because we can scratch some symbols on a paper and get others of a like mind to agree with us. I can't help but think that we are all on very shaky ground.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by StateOfTheHeart (here)

Posted by Paul (here)
Notice that he is suggesting that the entire mass of 100 billion galaxies (the estimated size of the entire known Universe) is crammed into each and every atomic nucleus of each atom in the Universe.

This is absolutely, totally, mind-bogglingly absurd.

I dismiss Nassim for speaking utter nonsense of immense proportions, and clearly and repeatedly using imposing sounding mumbo-jumbo to disguise the absolute absurdity of his "theory."

I definitely appreciate what you're saying regarding the mathematics of Haramein's work; he is presenting in the physics arena and so it is only sensible that his theories have the relevant proof and stand the truth-test of mathematics, free of spiritual/personal beliefs/desires and pretty words/concepts.

Well said.

Nassim's work might have value in other ways besides physics (though I don't trust him anymore and I am no longer interested in further examining his work, physics or other.)

He presents his work, in part, as physics, better physics even than others have done so far, and uses his claimed superior physics to suggest additional worth for his other insights. I dissent, vigorously.