+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 73

Thread: Nassim Haramein

  1. Link to Post #41
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,624
    Thanks
    30,536
    Thanked 138,656 times in 21,533 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Quote Posted by CyRus (here)
    Fair enough! =) Perhaps I haven't been frequenting the right threads.
    Part of it is being courteous, and part of it is just that it works better.

    If you're having a conversation with someone else, as we here are today, and if that other person is showing some interest in or respect for someone you figure is a fraud or a fool, then:
    • It's more courteous to say "in my view, that guys's an idiot", than to say "you're too stupid to understand ... but ..."
    • It also works better. It's more likely the other person will hear what you said (even if they still disagree), rather than shut down in aggravation.
    We encourage both successful and courteous communication amongst members. Fortunately, in this case anyway, those two agree.

    Note also that addressing something to "this community" will be read by many as being personally addressed to them.

    Combining the above, we arrive at Jake's suggestions (if I understand this.)

    Sure, there are (1) some here who understand any particular subject well, (2) some others who don't (in perhaps your view or mine) but who think they do (and they might be right!), and (3) some others who happily agree that they haven't a clue. As always in such matters, the realization of which we are and what we know must come from within. External dictates on such matters are uniformly rebelled against (bless the irrepressible soul in each of us.)
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    Argos (3rd September 2011), Mad Hatter (16th October 2011), NancyV (6th September 2011), nimmer (5th September 2011), onawah (3rd September 2011), the trojan (2nd September 2011), ulli (7th September 2011)

  3. Link to Post #42
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,262
    Thanks
    47,756
    Thanked 116,554 times in 20,694 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    I liked these remarks from Beth, post #6, from December on the thread:

    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...urse-on-Avalon...

    Re: Kind methods for civil discourse on Avalon...


    " I get to see the mood/attitudes of most of you. And lately I'm pretty disappointed. In the mission to combat reactive-ness and hate/anger, quite a few have succumbed to it.

    You all probably hate the guy but he has a few good things to say, but Dr. Phil says no one wins when everyone is being a right fighter. Because really, does it make you better if you're right?

    I implore you all to spend more time researching and exposing the real threats in this world. Not fighting with a fellow neighbor, it's just a waste of time.

    And as Hiram suggests, we all don't have to agree with one another, but do it with some dignity and respect.

    Much love to you all on your journey, it's a rough ride out there and it's good to have friends. "


    It may be too much to ask for that we all be friends, but we can be respectful and courteous.

    Mystics, apparently with little in the way of technology or established scientific theory to work with such as we have now, informed us long ago about the nature of the universe, which our scientific community is only now catching up to. How did they do it? Astral travel? Communing with higher beings? Meditation? Enlightenment? It's difficult to explain such things with our limited vocabularies. Only direct experience can make it clear how such leaps of insight can occur.

    I think there are many ways to understanding the world we live in.
    People's brains are wired differently, and we all have different gifts.
    Some take the intellectual approach, which is often just an incremental method of adding facts or theories up to arrive at conclusions.
    Others are more feeling/intuitive and can arrive at conclusions by looking directly at the problem and seeing the whole picture.
    They don't necessarily have to follow the same steps, learn the same facts, follow the same procedures that others do.
    It's great if they can do both, and thereby show the incremental thinkers how they arrived at the conclusions they did, but that's not always the case.
    Incremental thinkers are confounded by intuitive thinkers, and don't understand how it's done.
    They are often offended and bewildered (especially if it threatens their reputations or a status quo they are attached to), often "cry wolf" in such cases, and are often later proven wrong.

    I have no expertise in math or physics.
    I have a high enough IQ to be in MENSA, if I chose to be, which I don't, but I'm not an intellectual, by any means, in the common sense of the term.
    But I am very much a feeling/ intuitive, and I can understand something about the cosmos without necessarily having any such skill or knowledge.
    I have had experiences of direct perception re the nature of the cosmos through meditation, just as the ancient mystics have. Lots of people do, though they don't generally talk about it. It's frowned upon in the current paradigm, though that's changing, thankfully.
    .

    Not being an intellectual doesn't mean that I am stupid.
    I came up in the Myers Brigg test (based on Carl Jung's work) as being one of a very small percentage of people who can see the overall picture without going through basic steps that incremental thinkers do.
    So when I look at Nassim's videos, I can get a lot of information and inspiration, even though I am not versed in theories of math or physics. I think he may be in the same category as I am, and perhaps that's why he explains things the way he does.
    I am grateful he does it that way, because I can understand something of what he is talking about, whereas if I had to wade through a lot of dry numbers and theorems, I would be lost.

    And so I can easily believe that he arrived at valid conclusions even if his math and physics do not agree with the accepted theories.
    Perhaps in time he will be able to backtrack and find explanations for his conclusions that will make more sense to his detractors.
    He has done a huge amount of homework, in any case, even if he hasn't gone through the more accepted channels of academia.
    Just because he doesn't have a lot of letters behind his name doesn't mean he doesn't have an understanding of math and physics.
    In any case, he is obviously very intelligent, and I think he deserves a lot of credit for his courageous approach, and for his warmth of heart and spirit.

    Speaking as a woman, though of course, that has also been frowned upon for a very long time in our world, I also love the fact that he has worked closely with his wife with natural childbirth, and she experienced bliss, rather than pain, when she was birthing their children. There is a video about it at:
    http://video.search.yahoo.com/search...dbirth+youtube
    There was another. longer video a while ago that showed more of Nassim being very supportive and loving to his wife during the birth and after, which I couldn't find, from which I would conclude he is a very loving and sensitive soul. I think it also took a lot of courage to show a very vulnerable side of himself so publicly (holding his newborn, he was in tears).

    I found much to agree with in the following post # 21 from Elixir on the "Fraud or Sage?" thread at
    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...-or-Sage/page2
    "Re: Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?

    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."

    I agree. It's fine to debate science here, but character assassination is another thing entirely.

    Also liked these comments from Shiva777 on the same thread:
    "Originally Posted by shiva777 View Post
    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."


    It can be karmically dangerous to call someone a fool and we have been cautioned against it by many wise people in the past:

    "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
    Matthew, King James Bible

    Personally, if Nassim is a fool, then I think he is a holy fool, also known as Heyokah or Coyote, and that is something completely different.
    Last edited by onawah; 3rd September 2011 at 20:56.

  4. Link to Post #43
    Norway Avalon Member CyRus's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd December 2010
    Location
    Norway
    Age
    34
    Posts
    127
    Thanks
    249
    Thanked 314 times in 91 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by CyRus (here)
    Fair enough! =) Perhaps I haven't been frequenting the right threads.
    Part of it is being courteous, and part of it is just that it works better.

    If you're having a conversation with someone else, as we here are today, and if that other person is showing some interest in or respect for someone you figure is a fraud or a fool, then:
    • It's more courteous to say "in my view, that guys's an idiot", than to say "you're too stupid to understand ... but ..."
    • It also works better. It's more likely the other person will hear what you said (even if they still disagree), rather than shut down in aggravation.
    We encourage both successful and courteous communication amongst members. Fortunately, in this case anyway, those two agree.

    Note also that addressing something to "this community" will be read by many as being personally addressed to them.

    Combining the above, we arrive at Jake's suggestions (if I understand this.)

    Sure, there are (1) some here who understand any particular subject well, (2) some others who don't (in perhaps your view or mine) but who think they do (and they might be right!), and (3) some others who happily agree that they haven't a clue. As always in such matters, the realization of which we are and what we know must come from within. External dictates on such matters are uniformly rebelled against (bless the irrepressible soul in each of us.)
    Again, I did not state this anywhere! I believe I said: "within this community, there are very few with the scientific fortitude to distinguish good science from BS." Not one mention of stupid anywhere, they are your words, not mine. Furthermore, a lack of scientific knowledge is not synonymous with stupidity, there are a great many people of great intellect who have no knowledge of science whatsoever.

  5. Link to Post #44
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,262
    Thanks
    47,756
    Thanked 116,554 times in 20,694 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Cyrus, Paul didn't say that you called anyone stupid, he was just giving an example.

    In any case, it's possible that people without "the scientific fortitude to distinguish good science from BS" might nevertheless be able to have some insight into the cosmos, not through the study of science, but through direct perception and intuition. That is a different kind of intelligence that cannot easily be measured or explained, but the scientific community is having to deal with it more and more, and it's an issue of interest here on the forum, which is quite natural, given the background and mission of PA.

    The reason I keep coming back to this thread is not so much because I feel moved to defend Nassim's theories, but because I object to character assassination. It's one thing to dispute information, it's another to attack a person's character.

    Nassim is a kind of whistleblower, in that he is not afraid to challenge accepted beliefs in the scientific community. PA and Project Camelot protect whistleblowers, even if their information is not entirely correct, as part of their mission, as you must surely realize by now.
    Last edited by onawah; 4th September 2011 at 21:25.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    greybeard (4th September 2011), Mad Hatter (16th October 2011)

  7. Link to Post #45
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    15th January 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Age
    38
    Posts
    722
    Thanks
    1,088
    Thanked 1,625 times in 516 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Quote Posted by firstlook (here)
    Cyrus,

    In terms of New mathematical theories that are progressing the field, who would you recommend I look into?

    Thanks.
    Cyrus,

    Do you think you could kindly respond to this question. I'm just trying to figure out what outlook your coming from so that I can better understand your talking points. I am fairly coherent in whatever scientific terms you feel best explains your view.

    Thanks.
    "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." -Plato

  8. Link to Post #46
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,624
    Thanks
    30,536
    Thanked 138,656 times in 21,533 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Quote Posted by CyRus (here)
    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    If you're having a conversation with someone else, as we here are today, and if that other person is showing some interest in or respect for someone you figure is a fraud or a fool, then:
    • It's more courteous to say "in my view, that guys's an idiot", than to say "you're too stupid to understand ... but ..."
    • It also works better. It's more likely the other person will hear what you said (even if they still disagree), rather than shut down in aggravation.
    Again, I did not state this anywhere! I believe I said: "within this community, there are very few with the scientific fortitude to distinguish good science from BS." Not one mention of stupid anywhere, they are your words, not mine. Furthermore, a lack of scientific knowledge is not synonymous with stupidity, there are a great many people of great intellect who have no knowledge of science whatsoever.
    Yes - of course - I was not quoting you in that phrase.

    I was making an example dialogue of how your statement that few in this community have the "scientific fortitude to distinguish good science from BS" can be read, and from some above posts, evidently were read, as personal insults. I was trying to make a point, by presenting a fictitious example, distinguishing between ways of discussing a subject that might be more, or less, successful.

    You were commenting not on the substance (or, in your view and my view lack of substance) in Nassim's analysis, but rather making excuses for those on this thread disagreeing with you. You rather clearly implied that some of the majority in this community who lacked the "scientific fortitude to distinguish good science from BS" were amongst those who disagree with you and I on this thread (otherwise why mention your low opinion of the scientific fortitude of most members here?)

    You did not level a direct insult: Yo Mama Wears Army Boots.

    You leveled a more diplomatic and indirect insult: Many in this room were not well educated in good footwear fashion sense.

    (And no, the last two italicized sentences are not direct quotes .)

    (Oh - and saying some lacks scientific fortitude to distinguish something is rather more personal than saying someone lacks specific scientific knowledge. The former suggests they would have difficult acquiring that knowledge, even if they were to try. The latter does not suggest that.)

    Argh - I'm getting way off topic here. Sorry.

    ¤=[Post Update]=¤

    Quote Posted by firstlook (here)
    Quote Posted by firstlook (here)
    Cyrus,

    In terms of New mathematical theories that are progressing the field, who would you recommend I look into?

    Thanks.
    You've likely already seen my recommendation above, and I realize I am not CyRus. But in case anyone missed it, I recommend Paul LaViolette.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    firstlook (4th September 2011), Mad Hatter (16th October 2011), NancyV (6th September 2011), onawah (4th September 2011)

  10. Link to Post #47
    Norway Avalon Member CyRus's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd December 2010
    Location
    Norway
    Age
    34
    Posts
    127
    Thanks
    249
    Thanked 314 times in 91 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Aah, I see. I apologize for the misunderstanding. In hindsight I can understand how my post could be interpreted as an indirect insult, and I will show more courtesy in the future.

    ¤=[Post Update]=¤

    Sorry, I seemed to miss your previous post:
    As to recommendations, I can echo Paul's suggestion of Paul LaViolette. He seems to have genuine knowledge of physics.. Otherwise, I would recommend Peter Russell http://www.peterrussell.com/pete.php, he is a fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences and has some very interesting views. Hope you find this helpful! (There are others if you need any further links)

  11. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CyRus For This Post:

    firstlook (4th September 2011), Mad Hatter (16th October 2011), NancyV (6th September 2011), nimmer (5th September 2011), ThePythonicCow (4th September 2011)

  12. Link to Post #48
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,262
    Thanks
    47,756
    Thanked 116,554 times in 20,694 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Since the issue of the award winning paper by Nassim has come up again in this thread, and "bob-a-thon"'s criticism of Nassim, I thought it would be appropriate to post the following, which is Nassim's direct (and I would say dignified) response to those charges, which is easily accessed at his website.
    IMHO, his words are obviously those of a knowledgeable, thoughtful and courteous man (who also has a good sense of humor).
    Bold letters are my own emphasis.
    I hope this will lay the matter of Nassim's character to rest, as well as his aptitude.
    From:
    http://theresonanceproject.org/bob-a-thon
    Letter to Dr. Bob-a-thon,

    I wanted to start with thanking Dr. Bob-a-thon for his efforts in elucidating some of the mathematical topological problems I hadn’t had time or interest to address. I typically avoid wasting my time participating in these so-called debunking sessions. However, as I can see that the gentleman has invested substantial efforts in this particular example, and because it is such a prime and typical expression of the reactionary tendencies defending against all odds the status quo and proclaiming it as “the truth”, I feel obligated to reply.

    I’d like to clarify however that these tendencies are usually found at a certain level of scientific development which typically includes professors at college level that do an excellent job at regurgitating previously accredited work, but don’t necessarily understand the process of discovering new science, and certainly new physics, in this case. This process, unlike what is described in the gentleman’s comments below his article, is a process of creative thinking and application that determine the adequacy of the fundamental concepts of a theory prior to the notability typically associated with previously established theories. I am sorry, but the true scientific process does not include personal attacks, character assassinations and name-calling. Although these methods are commonly found in today’s scientific communities, they are certainly not an appropriate way to conduct science or to conduct oneself as a professional in any field of expertise. New ideas that may seem completely alien to a current approach indeed may become the standard of tomorrow.

    In certain spheres of physics, and I assure you, they’re not so common, creative thoughts and concepts that are far from the standard view are encouraged and dialoged. How else could science evolve? However from a certain perspective, the new thoughts or the unusual approach appears as a slap in the face to the current popular and accepted theories. In the case of unification theory, it is even more dramatic, as many physicists across the globe agree, it is clear after almost 100 years of searching, that a significant change most likely is necessary either to the field equations, or to quantum theory, or even to both, in order to reconcile fundamental issues that have been plaguing physics for over a century. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ems_in_physics) And as we will see below, these problems are non-trivial (and I mean that in a mathematical reasoning sense)!

    As such, most of these creative ideas, as seen throughout history, typically come from outside, independent thinkers who blindside the academic institutions: Einstein being the most famous example, as he published what were considered to be extremely controversial views at the time, while working as a third class clerk at the Burn patent office. The same man later authored, while recollecting the difficulties he encountered in publishing and getting acceptance for his ideas: “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”

    I actually don’t believe in mediocre minds, as I consider that everyone is born brilliant but that certain life experiences and difficulties can reduce one’s capacity to access deeper levels of awareness that are necessary for creative and fundamental reflection. Here the inhibitors are constraints resulting from a style of education in which what is taught is proclaimed as the truth and the only truth, and where students are discouraged and severely reprimanded if they tend to wander in the awful world of untruth as predetermined by the Obvious Truth Holder. This type of attitude engenders these typical remarks from the gentleman who is the Obvious Truth Holder:

    “The reason I want to ‘debunk’ him is because he’s wrong. I teach physics and maths to students, and I think it’s important to let them know when something is wrong. It’s important to be able to tell truth from falsehood – if we don’t, then we lose sight of truth altogether.”

    Remarkable! It reminds me of this example from an elementary school teacher. This attitude is most likely what Einstein was pointing at when he stated, “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”

    I have been participating in multi-disciplinary physics conferences for some 15 years, and as a child, I commonly co-moderated discussion groups and group therapy sessions with my father, as he elaborated new concepts of education and contributed to his colleague Jean Piaget’s famous work on child development, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget

    Further, I have taught thousands of people throughout my time both in the ski and climbing industries and some 20 years of giving lectures and seminars. I have learned a few things throughout these years and one of them is that truth is a moving target. The truths of today were once untruths, and the untruths of today may become the truth of tomorrow. So Dr. Bob-a-thon, do not fear losing sight of the truth, as what you have found in the standard model is a partial truth and certainly an incomplete model and should be taught as such.

    But this is not about analysis of the downfalls of our current educational system, but about a rectification of the facts which the gentleman accuses me of overlooking and of jumping to conclusions without having investigated completely. Yet, and as is typical with this type of attack, the gentleman himself, in his first assertion of proof of my fraudulent activity (thinking new thoughts), is the one that distorts facts and jumps to conclusions without thorough investigation.

    In his point #1, the first and second paragraph clearly attempt to discredit the validity of the CASYS’09 Conference because of the gentleman’s unfamiliarity with this event and insinuates that the postings on my website mislead people to believe that it was an award given for all of physics where it is made clear that the award was given to The Schwarzschild Proton paper for the section of the CASYS’09 Conference in the field of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation” which took place at the University of Liege in Belgium. http://www2.ulg.ac.be/mathgen/CHAOS/

    Furthermore, it is clear that the gentleman didn’t take the time to go and investigate the program timetable to examine the other papers that my paper was competing against as he didn’t seem to know how many were submitted in this particular section. The gentleman is correct in asserting that not so many papers would be found there (approximately 20) as not many people in this world have either the capacity to work at this level, or the leisure to find the time to do in depth investigation of extremely difficult problems that were found insurmountable by some of the greatest thinkers in our history.

    The papers that were submitted this year were of very high quality from researchers from a wide international community and very reputable institutions. This is nothing unusual for the CASYS Conference physics section, as previous years have seen Nobel Prize Laureates participate, such as in CASYS’07 where I presented as well. As such, I was quite surprised to find my paper winning the Best Paper Award as it was competing against veteran physicists and researchers, including papers from the director of the conference himself. How much did the selection committee know about physics? I don’t know. However, the quality of the physics papers that have been submitted certainly demands that the reviewers have some fairly advanced understanding of physics to be able to even comprehend any of it. It wasn’t the Nobel Prize, however, I wonder how many prizes the gentleman has won in physics?

    It seems like I can’t even get the gentleman’s real name or find any of his credentials to be able to ascertain his capacity to review my work. As such, since he gave himself the name Bob-a-thon I shall call him Dr. Bob-a-thon, which, interestingly, I found to have a very disturbing definition in the urban dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=b.+o : “b.o.b.-a-thon: It may be that the gentleman had not done a full investigation before jumping to conclusions and choosing this pseudonym.

    In point #2, the gentleman suggests that my Schwarzschild Proton paper has no merit as such, and supports his argument using three comments. I will address them one by one (for a complete rebuttal of his technical criticisms of the Schwarzschild proton, read http://theresonanceproject.org/schwa...oton-manifesto).

    a) “His overall argument is circular”

    This assertion is quite remarkable as The Schwarzschild Proton, while proposing a unification view, attempts to resolve a very significant circular argument found in the standard model. Almost a century ago, when it was determined that there seemed to be a highly charged nucleon at the center of atoms that contained most of their mass and that this entity was composed of particles that somehow must have been held together against their electrostatic charge (Coulomb repulsion), the scientific community at large adopted the concept of some mysterious strong force plucked out of thin air that happened to be in the correct proportion to produce a confinement necessary for proton to proton interaction. Later on it was found that the proton seemed to have internal structures called quarks and since those are confined in an even much smaller space, the color force was elaborated and made to be infinitely strong. Now the strong force at the proton scale was said to be only a remnant of the all-powerful color force of infinite nature mediated by gluons. Nowhere in the standard model is there given an argument for the source of energy that would be necessary to produce a force of infinite nature –that is, the strongest force in the Universe.

    Ironically, this is a perfect example of circular thinking. One finds an error in his or her current physical model that doesn’t agree with experiment or observation, then proceeds to invent a new kind of force or even a new kind of matter (in the case of the dark matter/dark energy allegories, see below) then gives this new invention exactly the characteristics necessary to make the initial model work. Then the researcher asserts that the new quantity is confirmed, since it is predicted by the initial model which otherwise fails.

    In order for the argument of the standard model to not be circular, a mechanism for the production of an infinite confining force would have had to be given, and this is exactly what The Schwarzschild Proton does. It does so by postulating a certain amount of coherent and polarized structure in the available vacuum fluctuations present at the quantum scale (known to produce foam-like structures in the spacetime manifold, according to the standard model) and contributing to high curvature near or at the horizon. This is not addressed or elaborated on in The Schwarzschild Proton paper, although it is better referenced in the final copy for publication which is not available on the internet yet. However, my earlier papers Collective Coherent Oscillation Plasma Modes In Surrounding Media of Black Holes and Vacuum Structure – Quantum Processes with Considerations of Spacetime Torque and Coriolis Forces and Spinors, Twistors, Quaternions, and the “Spacetime” Torus Topology treated this very issue and showed that soliton-like structures and acoustic plasma solutions found in the neighborhood of horizons demand a certain amount of coherent structure in the vacuum at the quantum level. Therefore, the Schwarzschild paper is not a stand-alone paper, but a continuation of investigation of a certain approach to the structure of spacetime which involves distortions due to torque and Coriolis effect which may produce discreteness at the quantum level resolving the division between the relativistic world and the quantum world. This approach has been successful in predicting many astrophysical phenomenons, including the existence of black holes prior to galactic formation (http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2009/bhbulge/). The following quote is one example from The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein’s Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.

    “In this section we have shown that we can modify Einstein’s field equations and the Kerr-Newman solution in order to accommodate torque and the Coriolis forces, which we term the Haramein-Rauscher solution. Since Einstein’s field equations obey the Laplace-Poisson condition, the torquing of spacetime may be the result of the vacuum gradient density in the presence of matter-energy. Modification of the field equations makes it possible to include the torque terms and hence generate more realistic solutions. These solutions more comprehensively describe the dynamical rotational structures of galaxies, novae, supernovae, and other astrophysical structures which in this case are driven by a spacetime torque. Hence, with the inclusion of torque and Coriolis effects in Einstein’s field equations, the spacetime manifold correlates well with the observable mechanisms of black holes, galactic topology, supernova formation, stellar plasma dynamics and planetary science such as ring formation and the Coriolis structure of atmospheric dynamics. This may lead to a model where the driving torque and the dynamical Coriolis forces of the spacetime manifold topology are responsible for the observed early formation of mature spiral galaxies . Further, our model is consistent with galactic structures, the super-massive black hole at their centers, as well as polar jets, accretion disks, spiral arms and galactic halo formations.”

    The impetus for the Schwarzschild Proton paper was merely to show that when a proton is treated as a mini black hole, its interactive behavior actually predicts well (considering a first order approximation since a full tensor analysis would need to be included using the Kerr-Newman metric and eventually the Haramein-Rauscher solution) the gamma emission, the interaction time and the so-called “anomalous magnetic moment” of the proton – which now has been given a source through the polarized vacuum structure.

    b) “The nucleus of a single atom of hydrogen has a mass of nearly a billion tons.”

    As the gentleman points out, this may be a silly thing to predict. Obviously, I thought of modifying G and the Planck’s scale so that the Schwarzschild Proton mass would come out to the standard value (as others have done http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701006), however my point in this paper is actually to show (and this is why I added a scaling graph) that objects in the Universe from universal size to subatomic particles tend towards the Schwarzschild condition as demonstrated by the scaling graph in the paper. It was clear to me when I first made the calculation that this would be an issue, and this is exactly why I included a graph based on observational data of the mass of objects in the Universe from universal size to quasars, galactic structures, stellar size objects and so on to see if the Schwarzschild proton mass had any merit whatsoever. Since the initial calculation I have made with the collaboration of Dr. Hyson, we have made many graphs, attempting to find a way to show the standard proton mass to be related to the rest of the objects in the Universe including the Planck’s mass. But in every case, whether it is the log of the mass versus the log of the surface area or the log of the mass versus surface volume ratio, or mass versus entropy (surface), the Schwarzschild condition proton falls nicely on the trend line (in some cases where we have a multitude of objects from Universal size to quasars, large galactic clusters, local superclusters and so on), while the standard model proton always falls completely off the trend line. Therefore, the mass versus radius graph reveals a hidden and profound meaning; that is, that organized matter in the Universe seems to scale in terms of its density towards the black hole condition.

    The gentleman asked “why we never measure this huge mass when we weigh hydrogen (or anything else)”. First of all, here the gentleman makes a common error in his language (and I will assume it is not an error in his understanding of physics), as mass and weight are two different animals (http://www.hitxp.com/phy/cph/020902.htm). More importantly, the issue lies in the fact that so far the standard model has been unable to identify a source for the mass of objects, such as the mass of particles, as the concept of mass is a fairly esoteric concept. The best model so far from the mainstream is the Higgs mechanism which has encountered serious obstacles. Read the Higgs mass under Hierarchy problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarc...The_Higgs_Mass. Here the standard model is experiencing issues in predictions that conservatively include some 11 orders of magnitude for unification. There are fundamental issues with the standard model’s understanding of mass and energy, although these issues are not commonly acknowledged. The scaling graph in The Schwarzschild Proton paper is much more than a statement about only the proton entity; it is also a statement of relationships in scales defining horizons as a quantization of spacetime.

    One of the best examples is the so-called bare mass or bare field in quantum field theory. This issue has been so buried that many physicists are completely unaware of it, and the issue does not even appear as an entry in Wikipedia as very little literature can be found on it. However, the problem is extremely significant, that is, that even the standard model does not come anywhere close to predicting the mass of an atom that has been “measured” in experimental studies. In fact, when the standard model does an analysis of an electron entity, it finds that this entity must have infinite mass and infinite charge indeed. The approach of the standard model has been to ignore these results and use a renormalization term typically denoted as Z-1 to make the theory agree with experimental studies http://universe-review.ca/R15-12-QFT.htm#Green. This is an enormous fudge factor and in this article discussing it http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/.../msg01081.html and quoting reputable physicists, the gentleman’s conclusions are quite telling:

    “…a bare electron charge and mass is infinite.. something not even Wilson Renormalization Group can get rid of. So I just wonder what is the source of the bare electron infinite charge and mass. What do you think? Initially I think it’s something akin to black hole singurality but in reality it may involve more exotic physics.”

    In one way the Schwarzschild proton elucidates the fact that the energy potential necessary for confinement must be accounted for and in the final copy of The Schwarzschild Proton (not available on the net yet as it is in the publishing process) we calculate the mass dilation resulting from a proton rotating near relativistic speeds and find that at a velocity of 10^-39 slower than C, the proton exhibits the mass of a Schwarzschild entity. From there, I am planning on addressing the mass issue directly in an upcoming paper, showing that the solution to the Schwarzschild proton, which was only a first order approximation as mentioned above, should be eventually addressed in a Kerr-Newman and more importantly in a Haramein-Rauscher metric, where torque and Coriolis effects are accounted for. These effects may show that the distortion of the metrical space at the surface event horizon of the black hole structure produces turbulence and high curvature that may not be detectable from a simple long-range mass spectrometer or scattering experiments, which do not examine the highly curved structure near and at the horizon. In this case the black hole has hairs due to Coriolis effects on the structure of spacetime (Others have come to similar conclusions from completely different approaches http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9201059v1, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9604134v2, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9609084v1, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9202014v1), and it is in that fashion that I am planning on explaining the reason why the current so-called rest mass of the proton is so far off the Schwarzschild condition and the apparent trend of other organized matter in our Universe.

    On the cosmological level, this highly turbulent structure of horizons where velocities approach C may be the source of matter creation through sheering of the spacetime manifold itself at the quantum level which predicts a continuous matter creation model at black hole horizons instead of the current Big Bang approach with its dark matter/dark energy allegories http://cosmologystatement.org/. Recent findings http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...te-conception/ not only confirm the existence of black holes prior to galactic formation but as well may eventually confirm matter creation processes near and at horizons, as in a continuous creation model, instead of the conventional accretion of particles and dust, the source of which has not been identified by the standard Big Bang model http://cosmologystatement.org

    c) “The paper, while using some scientific terms, is presented at a very basic level…Nassim is merely playing with equations from student textbooks”

    To this assertion I believe once again that Einstein said it most eloquently, “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” The Schwarzschild Proton paper could have been much more complex, as I had, with the collaboration of Dr. Rauscher and some discussions I’ve had with Dr. Rowlands :: http://theresonanceproject.org/uni/peter_rowlands.html, found multiple ways to go about it. For instance, in 2003 Dr. Rauscher and I elaborated a solution that comes to almost the same conclusions as the Schwarzschild Proton using QCD and QED. Further, Dr. Rowlands’ rewrite system (http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/6544.html) predicts as well singularity-like structures at the atomic scale.


    The initial first drafts of the Schwarzschild Proton included many of these more advanced complexities; however my critics had already commented that my earlier papers were complex and too convoluted to make clear my approach. Furthermore, it was important to me for the Schwarzschild proton to be as clear and simple as possible, so that even a college level student could understand the mathematics and follow the logic to its conclusions. There was a certain beauty about this simplicity, and I purposefully stripped any complexities I could, and at the end of the day I may have gone a little bit too far with that idea. What I mean by that is that I could have put a little more beef around the arguments necessary for the reader to understand the approach I am taking and it is important to note that the current available version on the Internet was a draft copy that was not meant for publication. It was produced barely on time for the deadline for the CASYS conference while in the middle of touring during the summer of 2009. The paper will soon be updated as it is undergoing peer review and it was already asked of me to provide better references and to beef up certain sections.

    One of the reasons the CASYS group thought of the merit of my paper to be worthy of an award is mostly likely because of my ongoing relationship with this group which has been following the development of my approach throughout the years and they could see the Schwarzschild Proton paper in the context of the other papers I have published.

    In point #3, we find a more serious assertion about my alleged fraudulent nature. The gentleman proceeds to comment on an obscure and private discussion between myself and another researcher, Marko Rodin which is actually an illegal video as it was never approved for publication. Nowhere in any text or in any multimedia material do I ascertain the accuracy or the validity of this anecdotal discovery I was considering some years ago. If the accuracy of the relationship between the phi curve and the ninth division of a circle structure defined by Mr. Rodin’s mathematics had been fully explored and turned out to be valid, it would be interesting and I would have certainly proceeded in publishing or discussing it in public and so on. However, I did no such thing since I knew very well that the confirmation of the mathematics had not been done and since my interest has been fairly low and my time extremely busy, I had not been able to complete the proof. I actually made that quite clear in an email to a group of researchers in various fields that were inquiring about the approach I took to produce the spiral. A debate flared up and I had to immediately intervene as I was privy to the situation. My email to the group, sent on September 26, 2009, is as follows:

    Dear Folks,

    I am sorry if I inadvertently contributed to some confusion! I do not have the time to render the math for what I’ve done but the jepg’s and gif animation I created are self explanatory. It is important to realize that when I did this some 5 years ago I mentioned it to Marko in an anecdotal but interesting way. I did not do a full mathematical analysis. If someone is interested I would love to see it as there may be a deeper meaning to it or not.

    So thank you again, Dr. Bob-a-thon, for having elucidated this calculation. However I’d like to add that as a first order approximation my finding was approximately 10% off, and a proper analysis would look at the relationship to the Fibonacci sequence, which approximates phi, as is found in nature, where is not found in nature as an exact representation. I’d love to hear the gentleman’s thoughts, as he may want to contribute more than criticism and character assassination. Whatever the case may be, to discredit all of my work because I may have had a thought in a private conversation with another researcher that may have been inaccurate or incomplete is inappropriate. In general, I attempt to find everything I can find on the matter before I make public statements that would mislead the population. Having that said, I am sure in the prolific amount of subjects I have studied, that extends from advanced physics to ancient civilization and anthropology, that I have most likely made errors that were not purposefully attempting to deceive. Many errors have been found in the body of work of some of the most prominent physicists and scientists on the planet which does not necessarily discredit their contribution to humanity as a whole. Furthermore, many things that are taught in universities today may be found to be completely incorrect tomorrow and that certainly wouldn’t make all the teachers purposefully attempting to deceive the students (although there is a certain tendency in many educators to skip over some of the difficulties that current theories may have in order to maintain an appearance of absolute truth).

    In point #4: A question. How is it that there is absolutely no support from any part of the scientific community for any of Nassim’s ideas, talks, or research?

    Once again, the gentleman jumps to conclusions without having all the facts. Here are a few endorsements from prominent scientists (http://theresonanceproject.org/testimonials) who think that my approach has merit and that throughout the years have been collaborating and contributing to my knowledge base. Furthermore, as I provided links above (and there are more not provided here), other researchers with serious credentials are quickly coming to the same conclusions I have regarding the singular nature of the atomic world.

    a) “because the scientific establishment are afraid of having all their precious theories overturned?”

    To that statement, all I can say is that history speaks for itself as any new significant changes that were brought to the scientific community were typically largely resisted, ridiculed and then eventually accepted. As Schopenhauer said, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” I would like to propose here that there is a movement, which I believe is unstoppable, that will eventually come to conclude that early interpretations of the quantum world were the result of the misunderstanding of the singular nature of atomic nuclei.

    This change may take time and the period is directly related to the resistance of the current paradigm to this fundamental change in our view of the Universe. It is not a trivial change, and it is absolutely normal that there is great resistance as the current theories have done an excellent job for a long time. However, we have reached a moment where some of the fundamental issues such as the origin of mass, electromagnetism, spin, and certainly unification, etc. must be addressed.

    As for the assertion from the gentleman that mentioned the typical argumentative and unfriendly nature of the scientific community, I believe that these attitudes are one of the most detrimental components to human evolution and transcendence of some of our most tremendous challenges. The scientific community, and certainly the world as a whole, must eventually come to learn that collaboration and constructive criticism always produce a better outcome for everyone than competition and warring, whether as name-calling or literally.

    b) “because scientists are incapable of seeing outside the box that they were trained to think in, and are too proud to accept radical suggestion from an outsider?”

    (c) because they haven’t come across his ideas yet?

    (d) because anyone with an understanding of science can see that his claims and his methods are not scientific in any sense of the term, and that he doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about?

    b), c) and d) are addressed by the answers above. However the gentleman mentions Garrett Lisi as an example of a renegade physicist being accepted by the mainstream scientific community. To this I would reply that Mr. Lisi published a set of equations that very much complements the current approach and as such, it is not a radical change in the perspective of the particle world – (although Mr. Lisi’s theory I believe has furthered a specific approach to particle physics, it has of lately been found to have some serious issues http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658). What’s interesting, however, is that once again it is some independent person, in this case a surfer dude living in a van (as I did for many years in order to finance my research) who came to advance the thinking of millions of professional scientists who get, in general, good salaries and can dedicate most of their time to research instead of survival. What does that tell us about the educational system and the current approach to advanced research?

    In the case of someone bringing forth ideas that are much more radical, I would like to add this quote from this Associated Press article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7536665/...ience-science/

    Less tolerance for renegades?

    “…Maybe there is an Einstein out there today,” said Columbia University physicist Brian Greene, “but it would be a lot harder for him to be heard.” Especially considering what Einstein was proposing.

    “The actual fabric of space and time curving? My God, what an idea!” Greene said at a recent gathering at the Aspen Institute. “It takes a certain type of person who will bang his head against the wall because you believe you’ll find the solution.”

    Perhaps the best examples are the five scientific papers Einstein wrote in his “miracle year” of 1905. These “thought experiments” were pages of calculations signed and submitted to the prestigious journal Annalen der Physik by a virtual unknown. There were no footnotes or citations.

    What might happen to such a submission today?

    “We all get papers like those in the mail,” Greene said. “We put them in the crank file.”

    Furthermore, comments are made below the gentleman’s article criticizing the fact that I have set up various programs and sales in a nonprofit foundation and that these activities are not typical of scientific researchers. Well, in order to eventually get out of my van and be able to continue doing advanced research, not only in theoretical physics but as well in technological developments, it was necessary for me to reach out for public support since I receive no financial support from large institutions or governmental structures. Therefore, I have had to divide my time between running an organization to produce resources necessary for ongoing research, the research itself and, of course, my family responsibilities. This has been most challenging and certainly has not put me in a position of great wealth to this day. The foundation struggles every month to make ends meet (especially in this economy), and my family is barely able to receive the financial support it needs.

    Point #5. A similar question. How is it that none of his radical historical ideas have any support from any academic institutions either?

    Most of the points given in #5 are also addressed above. This section is where the gentleman proclaims himself and his institution the beholder of the truth and the only truth as if the standard model was a complete and done deal. In the discussion below, confusion occurs because statements are made proclaiming that I encouraged acquaintances to learn specific math skills so that they may help. This does not mean that I don’t understand math or that my math skills are not good enough to do what I do. As mentioned in those comments, I am the first one to admit that I wish my mathematical capacity was much higher, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not good enough to do what I do with some of the help of others. Most physics projects today involve multiple physicists helping each other with various skills. I do understand enough math to write the papers I have written with the help of other researchers, however my extreme dyslexia has been a handicap for most of my life and as such this struggle is not so unusual in the scientific community as Einstein encountered it himself. I do encourage people that want to contribute to the research to learn the math skills necessary to understand the previous work that has been published and to be able to contribute useful and accurate suggestions.

    Thereafter there is some discussion about how my work should be classified. There is no doubt that my work in the field of physics belongs in the box of physics and nowhere else. However, the whole of my research does not belong in any of the boxes available in the current mainstream community as it touches areas from advanced physics to philosophy and spiritual concepts and, as such, will never be placed in any conventional box as it is an all-encompassing holistic approach to existence – and nothing less. The gentleman is quite welcome to disagree with this unusual approach to science and philosophy; however, 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. Once again, we live at a critical time in history where we need to learn to collaborate and contribute to each other with mutual respect, no matter how widely divergent our opinions may be, in order to overcome many of the challenges we are facing today.

    Absolute certainty that an idea is wrong…is an attitude that has no place in science and one that discredits the scientific enterprise. – Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate

    Nassim Haramein
    Research Director
    The Resonance Project
    Last edited by onawah; 4th September 2011 at 23:04.

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    greybeard (4th September 2011), Hervé (4th September 2011), kudzy (5th September 2011)

  14. Link to Post #49
    Scotland Avalon Member greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Inverness-----Scotland
    Language
    English
    Age
    78
    Posts
    13,356
    Thanks
    32,618
    Thanked 68,863 times in 11,839 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    When you get scientists building a collider at billion dollar expense looking amongst other things for the infinite- small I wonder.
    Especially when ages ago yogic sages in meditation discovered the atom and much smaller at no expense.
    I think Nassim explained that one well. Infinite is infinite in both directions with humans approximately in the middle.
    I also believe that he was shown traveling from school in the bus infinity in the "dot".

    A few inventors and mathematicians have woken with the answer in their heads.
    Nassim has devoted his whole life to finding the truth and now has "qualified" scientists working with him.

    I have no way of knowing that he speaks the truth but I believe he is an honorable man who has got at least some of the numbers right.

    Chris
    Be kind to all life, including your own, no matter what!!

  15. Link to Post #50
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,262
    Thanks
    47,756
    Thanked 116,554 times in 20,694 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Here are some testimonials for Nassim from prominent names in the fields of physics and mathematics
    From:
    http://theresonanceproject.org/testimonials
    "Testimonials

    Peter Rowlands, Ph.D.
    Research Fellow, Department of Physics, University of Liverpool
    Governor / Honorary Governor, Manchester College, Oxford

    “I recently attended a Consortium organized at the Resonance Project, involving ten selected participants. I have attended many conferences over a period of more than thirty years, but this one was quite exceptional for the fact that the participants, though coming from very different directions, found such synergy between their different viewpoints that discoveries were being made in real time, as a result of the extraordinary cross-fertilization that developed. The work of Nassim Haramein, Elizabeth Rauscher and their colleagues at the Project opens up the possibilities of explaining phenomena on many scales, through its significant insights into gravity, the Coriolis force and a related scaling law, and its mathematically rigorous approach.

    It was immediately obvious to me that there were important connections with my own work in gravity, quantum physics, and fundamental mathematical structures, as outlined in my recently-published book Zero to Infinity (World Scientific, 2007), and the same was true for my collaborators, Vanessa Hill and Peter Marcer, and the other participants. It was clear that we were in a strong position to set up collaborations which would create results that none of us would achieve working in isolation. This is really significant ground-breaking science in many areas – physics, cosmology, geology, mathematics, biology – and truly interdisciplinary in its scope. Those who, like myself, were first-time visitors to the Project, were enormously impressed by the vision and drive which has made it possible. The Project is a unique idea, and is already making a significant contribution to ideas at the frontier of human knowledge.”

    Louis H. Kauffman, Ph.D. Professor of Mathematics
    University of Illinois at Chicago

    “I have worked together with Nassim in the Sequoia Symposium – a multi-disciplinary seminar, over the course of four years. Nassim has been doing his independent research for fifteen years. Nassim is an expert on the polyhedral geometry of space and he is working on interrelations of physics, astrophysics, geometry and philosophy. He brings tremendous energy and creativity to this work… Nassim is a unification theorist and cosmologist and expert in the geometry of space. I recommend him very highly.” (2001)

    “I am writing this letter in behalf of Nassim Haramein and his research project. I had the pleasure of participating in a research seminar on interdisciplinary problems in physics and mathematics organized by him. This included a tour of the research facility and an opportunity to converse about the scientific problems involved. I am very impressed with this work and its potential for both specific applications and theoretical progress. I recommend this work and Nassim Haramein’s endeavor very highly indeed.” (2008)

    Elizabeth A. Rauscher, Ph.D., Nuclear and Astrophysics
    Physics Research Director, TRL Laboratory

    “Over the past several years I have had the fortunate opportunity to work with Nassim Haramein. Haramein’s research is very complimentary to my own, and he has vastly extended research that I had conducted over a number of years at the University of California at Berkeley, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. For over three decades I have been working on a Theory of Fundamental Processes to cosmological models. This work involves an approach to unification of the quantum theory and relativistic physics. Certain additional concepts in my work required further clarification and advancement.

    Nassim Haramein has conducted similar research for number of years and has provided vital advancements in the unification macro cosmological and micro phenomenon. This research has provided highly significant advances, which satisfies the proper conditions from early universe to the current universal state. Haramein’s research presents new and major concepts that lead to a new scaling law from cosmological, galactic, stellar and other x-ray emitting systems, such as the atom. It extends my research and resolves some of the inconsistencies in my work. Haramein’s work involves vast new progress towards a new approach of a fundamental and coherent unified cosmological model. Recent observational astrophysical data, which he and I have researched strongly, supports the new model that Haramein has presented. These are also of interest to me and my research, and I am continuing my involvement with the Resonance Project and Nassim Haramein’s research in the capacity of theoretical physicist, technologist and design consultant, for it is my view that these efforts are not only legitimate, but are crucial to the advancements of physics.”

    Ashok Gangadean, Ph.D.
    Professor of Philosophy, Haverford College
    Founder, Director of the Global Dialogue Institute

    “I am pleased to give the strongest support for Nassim Haramein. I have known him for the past four years and believe that his unusual intellectual and personal gifts make him an important asset to higher education on a global scale. I have been colleagues with Nassim since his first presentation to the Sequoia Seminar… The Sequoia Seminar is a forum that brings together some of the most advanced and creative minds across diverse fields of research. When I first heard Nassim speak I was amazed at the breadth and scope of his vision and knowledge. The Sequoia Seminar is a rigorous exploration of the Logic of the Unified Field, the attempt to clarify the deeper missing foundations of knowledge across diverse disciplines.

    It is clear that Nassim has advanced knowledge in the areas of Physics, Astrophysics, Geometry, Philosophy, Cosmology and Unified Field theory. The long attempt to tap the deeper code of the Unified Field is one of the most significant research initiatives of the past century. And Nassim is clearly making a substantial contribution to the advancement of this depth of science and research. I was also impressed with the response of my colleagues to Nassim’s original ideas, in widely diverse fields ranging from Mathematics, Cosmology, Physics, Architecture, Biochemistry and Philosophy…I should add that Nassim is a gentle and humane person whose presence brings out the best in others. He is completely devoted to learning and to a selfless giving of his best to others. He is a gifted and valuable teacher.”

    Elisabet Sahtouris, Ph.D.
    Former Professor of Evolution Biology at M.I.T.
    United Nations Consultant, Author

    “As an evolution biologist, professor and consultant, I have worked with various scientific tanks on the unification of scientific disciplines, new university curricula and Unified Theory in physics and cosmology. My familiarity with Mr. Haramein’s work came through his repeated invitations to present it in these situations, where he served as both speaker and discussant with many scientists and mathematicians, often of world renown, who dearly respected his work. As I had the opportunity to see his presentations and have private discussions with him over a period of about five years, I can testify not only to his competence in physics, mathematics, astronomy, cosmology and related fields, but to the tremendous amount of work he did in researching and formulating his evolving geometric theory of the origins of matter – a theory unusual in its coherence, self-consistency and confirmation by the latest astronomical observations. As a graduate school professor and in serving on Ph.D. committees, I have rarely seen so dedicated and hard-working a student as Mr. Haramein, who has done his work entirely on his own for fifteen years, thereby demonstrating tremendous motivation and achievement.”

    Randolph Wesley Masters
    Professor at California Institute of Psychoacoustics
    Former Professor at San Jose State University
    President and Chief Engineer – Springlife Polarity Research

    “I have known Nassim Haramein … and we met due to our mutual background and affinity in the fields of geometry, physics, philosophy, and unification theory. I have attended many of his outstanding public presentations and we have done several public presentations of our mutual work together as well as participating in a multi-disciplinary unification theory group… Over the years we have shared an enormous amounts of private time together discussing the sciences. Of all of the scientists and philosophers I have met, including Nobel Prize winners, I have not found any of them to possess more knowledge of the unified field as comprehensively unified and accurate as the knowledge that Mr. Haramein effortlessly and meticulously knows and shares.

    I spent seventeen straight years teaching at the university level (University of California, Santa Cruz, 1972 – 1981 and San Jose state University 198 – 1989) where in addition to my usual and interdisciplinary teaching duties I coached undergraduate and graduate students who had interdisciplinary interests and talents. Some of these students had talents and interests that were almost beyond the university’s ability to serve as they either combined disciplines in a unique way or were beyond the current understanding in certain areas and even beyond the understanding of many of the faculty. Most of these students went on to complete their masters or doctorate degree and, according to follow up studies, were successful in the workforce. The reason I am sharing this is because, in all of these years, I don’t think I’ve met anyone with as much brilliant and insightful knowledge and at such a genius level of comprehension of the unified field as Nassim Haramein. If I were a member of his doctoral advisory board, I would have voted to award him a doctoral degree in unification theory and cosmology based on what he already knows and what he can currently document and communicate. In addition, I would have allowed him to skip most of the required courses, since much of his work makes them at least partially inaccurate on a number of key scientifically validated points. Many of the key points that Nassim Haramein made four years ago, some of which were viewed with skepticism or dismissed by national and international authorities, have since turned out to be totally accurate due to new scientifically proven evidence… The way things are going now, Nassim Haramein may turn out to be one of the foremost heroes in a field of study that can dramatically affect all of the other fields of study.”

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bryn ap Gwilym (4th September 2011), firstlook (6th September 2011), observer (3rd March 2012)

  17. Link to Post #51
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,262
    Thanks
    47,756
    Thanked 116,554 times in 20,694 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Not to be unkind, but the definition of the pseudonym 'bob-a-thon" is too funny to resist passing along.
    Nassim wrote:
    "It seems like I can’t even get the gentleman’s real name or find any of his credentials to be able to ascertain his capacity to review my work. As such, since he gave himself the name Bob-a-thon I shall call him Dr. Bob-a-thon, which, interestingly, I found to have a very disturbing definition in the urban dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=b.+o : “b.o.b.-a-thon: It may be that the gentleman had not done a full investigation before jumping to conclusions and choosing this pseudonym."

    Here's the definition from the urban slang dictionary:
    b.o.b.-a-thon: when a girl comes home from a hard day and takes a nice long bath, then proceeds to have a marathon session with her favorite vibrator. Includes multiple orgasms over a 2-3 hour period.
    Sunshine: So what'd you do last night, Katie?
    Katie: I had a b.o.b.-a-thon, and I feel so much better today! I was at it for like three hours! Six orgasms and no stress today baby!


    Apologies.... I just couldn't resist that. You have to keep a sense of humor in this crazy world....

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Mad Hatter (16th October 2011)

  19. Link to Post #52
    Norway Avalon Member CyRus's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd December 2010
    Location
    Norway
    Age
    34
    Posts
    127
    Thanks
    249
    Thanked 314 times in 91 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    Here are some testimonials for Nassim from prominent names in the fields of physics and mathematics
    From:
    http://theresonanceproject.org/testimonials
    "Testimonials
    Here is Bob-athon's reply to Haramein's letter: http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/...-bobathon.html All is not as it seems...
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 5th September 2011 at 06:11. Reason: trim quoted material

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CyRus For This Post:

    Mad Hatter (16th October 2011), ThePythonicCow (5th September 2011)

  21. Link to Post #53
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,262
    Thanks
    47,756
    Thanked 116,554 times in 20,694 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    After Bob-a-thon's apology for his name-calling and character assassination, he writes in this response to one of the bloggers on that site:

    "I've tried my best to explain the reasons I have for asserting that it's extremely clear that Haramein is bull****ting. Please refer to the paragraph near the very top of the page that begins "I'm also aware...".

    Your peace message is well taken... but perhaps you can understand that I'm not very interested in agreeing with Haramein, since it's clear to me that he's a fake. My allegiance is with the beauty of nature, with honesty and with genuine seeking after truth."

    I cannot help but question the sincerity of this person.

    And frankly, the debate on this thread is becoming fruitless, as far as I can see.

    The laws of physics are not written in stone. Our understanding of how the cosmos works will continue to evolve.

    Bob-a-thon's snide remarks about Nassim's interest in crop circles, UFOs, ancient archeology etc. certainly do him no credit on this forum.

    Whoever this Bob-a-thon person is, if he sincerely wants to debate theory, than I think he should make himself known publicly, publish some papers, and see if he can get some reputable people in the field to back him, as Nassim has done.

    Otherwise, it just looks to me like professional jealousy and someone whose ego has been tweaked by Nassim's charm and success in capturing the attention and admiration of the public and others in his field.

    And I would certainly advise him to get another pseudonym, if he doesn't have the courage to reveal his real identity.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Mad Hatter (16th October 2011)

  23. Link to Post #54
    Norway Avalon Member CyRus's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd December 2010
    Location
    Norway
    Age
    34
    Posts
    127
    Thanks
    249
    Thanked 314 times in 91 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    After Bob-a-thon's apology for his name-calling and character assassination, he writes in this response to one of the bloggers on that site:

    "I've tried my best to explain the reasons I have for asserting that it's extremely clear that Haramein is bull****ting. Please refer to the paragraph near the very top of the page that begins "I'm also aware...".

    Your peace message is well taken... but perhaps you can understand that I'm not very interested in agreeing with Haramein, since it's clear to me that he's a fake. My allegiance is with the beauty of nature, with honesty and with genuine seeking after truth."

    I cannot help but question the sincerity of this person.

    And frankly, the debate on this thread is becoming fruitless, as far as I can see.

    The laws of physics are not written in stone. Our understanding of how the cosmos works will continue to evolve.

    Bob-a-thon's snide remarks about Nassim's interest in crop circles, UFOs, ancient archeology etc. certainly do him no credit on this forum.

    Whoever this Bob-a-thon person is, if he sincerely wants to debate theory, than I think he should make himself known publicly, publish some papers, and see if he can get some reputable people in the field to back him, as Nassim has done.

    Otherwise, it just looks to me like professional jealousy and someone whose ego has been tweaked by Nassim's charm and success in capturing the attention and admiration of the public and others in his field.

    And I would certainly advise him to get another pseudonym, if he doesn't have the courage to reveal his real identity.
    Honestly, I personally think that Bob-athon was really annoyed at the criticism he took from Nassim's followers after publishing, what he thought was well-reasoned criticism. If you read the comments on his articles, you can see his frustration mounting. Also, he does not need to publish papers, he is a high-school teacher, not a research physicist. Honestly, if you look around on physicsforum etc, you will see that Haramein's ideas are not taken seriously at all in the field. Quite the contrary, he is a laughingstock! In this regard, Bob-athon is being very courteous indeed toward entertaining his ideas..

    Anyway, I can see you are emotionally tied to this subject, so I will respectfully and sincerely disagree with you. The laws of physics are in fact written in stone, and to blatantly disregard them is like saying I can throw a stone to Mars....

    Haramein is an idiot and a fool, however, you are entitled to your opinion. If you keep researching Haramein, reading both sides of this debate, you will undoubtedly come to the same conclusion I did!

  24. Link to Post #55
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,262
    Thanks
    47,756
    Thanked 116,554 times in 20,694 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Again, you end your argument with name calling, which has no place here.
    Insisting that our understanding of how the cosmos works is not constantly being revised is not something I will ever agree with, and I will always support anyone who is willing to challenge the status quo.

  25. Link to Post #56
    Aaland Avalon Member Agape's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th March 2010
    Posts
    5,580
    Thanks
    14,091
    Thanked 25,369 times in 4,614 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    Not to be unkind, but the definition of the pseudonym 'bob-a-thon" is too funny to resist passing along.
    Nassim wrote:
    "It seems like I can’t even get the gentleman’s real name or find any of his credentials to be able to ascertain his capacity to review my work. As such, since he gave himself the name Bob-a-thon I shall call him Dr. Bob-a-thon, which, interestingly, I found to have a very disturbing definition in the urban dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=b.+o : “b.o.b.-a-thon: It may be that the gentleman had not done a full investigation before jumping to conclusions and choosing this pseudonym."

    Here's the definition from the urban slang dictionary:
    b.o.b.-a-thon: when a girl comes home from a hard day and takes a nice long bath, then proceeds to have a marathon session with her favorite vibrator. Includes multiple orgasms over a 2-3 hour period.
    Sunshine: So what'd you do last night, Katie?
    Katie: I had a b.o.b.-a-thon, and I feel so much better today! I was at it for like three hours! Six orgasms and no stress today baby!


    Apologies.... I just couldn't resist that. You have to keep a sense of humor in this crazy world....



    I shall kindly connect you to the Spirit of Ra I did not follow the story of Bobathon ..


    But he uses my name so be it.


    Athon is Egyptian hymn to the Sun . It may sound like this ...


    http://library.flawlesslogic.com/hymn.htm


    Quote Akhnaton's Hymn to the Sun
    Thy dawning is beautiful in the horizon of the sky,
    O living Aton, Beginning of life!
    When thou risest in the Eastern horizon,
    Thou fillest every land with thy beauty.
    Thou art beautiful, great, glittering, high above every land,
    Thy rays, they encompass the lands, even all that thou hast made.
    Thou art Re, and thou carriest them all away captive;
    Thou bindest them by thy love.
    Though thou art far away, thy rays are upon the earth;
    Though thou art on high, thy footprints are the day.
    When thou settest in the western horizon of the sky,
    The earth is in darkness like the dead;
    They sleep in their chambers,
    Their heads are wrapped up,
    Their nostrils are stopped,
    And none seeth the other,
    While all their things are stolen
    Which are under their heads,
    And they know it not.
    Every lion cometh forth from his den,
    All serpents, they Sting.
    Darkness ...
    The world is in silence,
    He that made them resteth in his horizon.

    Bright is the earth when thou risest in the horizon.
    When thou shinest as Aton by day
    Thou drivest away the darkness.
    When thou sendest forth thy rays,
    The Two Lands (Egypt) are in daily festivity,
    Awake and standing upon their feet
    When thou hast raised them up.
    Their limbs bathed, they take their clothing,
    Their arms uplifted in adoration to thy dawning.
    (Then) in all the world they do their work.

    All cattle rest upon their pasturage,
    The trees and the plants flourish,
    The birds flutter in their marshes,
    Their wings uplifted in adoration to thee.
    All the sheep dance upon their feet,
    All winged things fly,
    They live when thou hast shone upon them.
    The barques sail up-stream and down-stream alike.
    Every highway is open because thou dawnest.
    The fish in the river leap up before thee.
    Thy rays are in the midst of the great green sea.

    Creator of the germ in woman,
    Maker of seed in man,
    Giving life to the son in the body of his mother,
    Soothing him that he may not weep,
    Nurse (even) in the womb,
    Giver of breath to animate every one that he maketh!
    When he cometh forth from the body ... on the day of his birth,
    Thou openest his mouth in speech,
    Thou suppliest his necessities.

    When the fledgling in the egg chirps in the shell,
    Thou givest him breath therein to preserve him alive.
    When thou hast brought him together
    To (the point of) bursting it in the egg,
    He cometh forth from the egg
    To chirp with all his might.
    He goeth about upon his two feet
    When he hath come forth therefrom.

    How manifold are thy works!
    They are hidden from before (us),
    O sole God, whose powers no other possesseth.
    Thou didst creat the earth according to thy heart
    While thou wast alone:
    Men, all cattle large and small,
    All that are upon the earth,
    That go about upon their feet;
    (All) that are on high,
    That fly wilh their wings.
    The foreign countries, Syria and Kush,
    The land of Egypt;
    Thou settest every man into his place,
    Every one has his possessions,
    And his days are reckoned.
    Their tongues are diverse in speech,
    Their forms likewise and their skins are distinguished.
    (For) thou makest different the strangers.

    Thou makest the Nile in the Nether World,
    Thou bringest it as thou desirest,
    To preserve alive the people.
    For thou hast made them for thyself,
    The lord of them all, resting among them;
    Thou lord of every land, who risest for them,
    Thou Sun of day, great in majesty.
    All the distant countries,
    Thou makest (also) their life,
    Thou hast set a Nile in the sky;
    When it falleth for them,
    It maketh waves upon the mountains,
    Like the great green sea,
    Watering the fields in their towns.

    How excellent are thy designs, O lord of eternity!
    There is a Nile in the sky for the strangers
    And for the cattle of every country that go upon their feet.
    (But) the Nile, it cometh from the Nether World for Egypt.

    Thy rays nourish every garden;
    When thou risest they live,
    They grow by thee.
    Thou makest the seasons
    In order to create all thy work:
    Winter to bring them coolness,
    And heat they they may taste thee.

    Thou didst make the distant sky to rise therein,
    In order to behold all that thou hast made,
    Thou alone, shining in thy form as living Aton,
    Dawning, glittering, going afar and returning.
    Thou makest millions of forms
    Through thyself alone;
    Cities, towns, and tribes, highways and rivers.
    All eyes see thee before them,
    For thou art Aton of the day over the earth.

    Thou art in my heart,
    There is no other that knoweth thee
    Save thy son Akhnaton.
    Thou has made him wise
    In thy designs and in thy might.
    The world is in thy hand,
    Even as thou hast made them.
    When thou hast risen they live,
    When thou settest, they die;
    For thou art length of life of thyself,
    Men live through thee,
    While (their) eyes are on thy beauty
    Until thou settest.
    All labour is put away
    When thou settest in the west.

    Thou didst establish the world,
    And raise them up for thy son,
    Who came forth from thy limbs,
    The King of Upper and Lower Egypt,
    Living in Truth, Lord of the Two Lands,
    Nefer-khrpru-Re, Wan-Re (Akhnaton),
    Son of Re, living in Truth, lord of diadems,
    Akhnaton, whose life is long;
    (And for) the chief royal wife, his beloved,
    Mistress of the Two Lands, Nefer-nefru-Aton, Nofretete,
    Living and flourishing for ever and ever

    Now who is who.



    I thought they're referring to some new subatomic particle by that name previously ...


    Do not disconnect . Closing session

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Agape For This Post:

    Mad Hatter (16th October 2011)

  27. Link to Post #57
    Norway Avalon Member CyRus's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd December 2010
    Location
    Norway
    Age
    34
    Posts
    127
    Thanks
    249
    Thanked 314 times in 91 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    Again, you end your argument with name calling, which has no place here.
    Insisting that our understanding of how the cosmos works is not constantly being revised is not something I will ever agree with, and I will always support anyone who is willing to challenge the status quo.
    What you don't understand is so will I! I am well aware that modern physics has it's failings, and that there are pseudo-skeptics who reject any notion of spirituality whatsoever. I believe there is a fundamental component to reality not yet discovered, that is somehow non-material. However, I believe the existing laws are correct, and this is easy to confirm through experimental analysis. Haramein does himself no justice by blatantly violating these facts...

    There are other more prominent physicists who challenge the status quo, attempting to solve our most profound questions. An example of such a physicist is Peter Russell www.peterrussell.com. Also, the Institute of Noetic Sciences does a lot of interesting research of mediumship, life after death, telepathy, precognition etc...

    I always support people who go against the prevailing paradigm as well, however, only if their work is scientifically justified. Haramein has many elementary flaws, and although he has a couple of genuinely interesting points, the fact that he calls himself a physicist when HE CLEARLY IS NOT, is what makes me disregard him altogether. Do you understand this? In other words, it is not the fact that he promotes a reconciliation of science with spirituality etc that I disagree with, as I have similar notions myself. It is the fact that he markets himself as a physicist, when he should be considered an interesting thinker and leave science alone altogether, as this is not his strong suite at all!
    Last edited by CyRus; 5th September 2011 at 00:26.

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CyRus For This Post:

    Mad Hatter (16th October 2011), NancyV (6th September 2011)

  29. Link to Post #58
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,262
    Thanks
    47,756
    Thanked 116,554 times in 20,694 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Thanks to Ra and to Agape for that.
    "athon" is the sense I think it was meant in this context is as in "marathon"
    Webster defines it as
    a : an endurance contest b : something (as an event, activity, or session) characterized by great length or concentrated effort
    which is what this thread is becoming.
    I think I will just leave it to the Mods!

  30. Link to Post #59
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,262
    Thanks
    47,756
    Thanked 116,554 times in 20,694 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Again, Cyrus, I do not agree.
    Would Nassim be considered a physicist in your view because he had gone through all the necessary schooling to get some letters behind his name?
    I don't think that is what makes someone a physicist.
    From what I have seen, much of what passes for higher education is the just a brain numbing, deadening waste of time.
    You are not addressing the issues that I have raised, and so I am done with this debate.

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Mad Hatter (16th October 2011)

  32. Link to Post #60
    Norway Avalon Member CyRus's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd December 2010
    Location
    Norway
    Age
    34
    Posts
    127
    Thanks
    249
    Thanked 314 times in 91 posts

    Default Re: Nassim Haramein

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    Again, Cyrus, I do not agree.
    Would Nassim be considered a physicist in your view because he had gone through all the necessary schooling to get some letters behind his name?
    I don't think that is what makes someone a physicist.
    From what I have seen, much of what passes for higher education is the just a brain numbing, deadening waste of time.
    You are not addressing the issues that I have raised, and so I am done with this debate.
    No, he would be a physicist in my view if he produced a solid body of work that was not so full of holes, faulty math, logical anomalies and blatant misunderstandings! I could not care less about an education or a degree! Let me try to make an analogy:
    Say you are a nurse, and a new surgeon comes into the operating room. The patient on the table is in for a heart surgery, but the new surgeon immediately starts sawing the patients skull! You say: "Hey, wait a second. Is not the heart located in the left portion of the chest?"
    He responds: "No, according to my new research, I have figured out that it is in fact located in the head!"

    Would you deem this man to be a genius, because he has discovered some new exciting knowledge? Or someone who clearly is not a surgeon?

  33. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CyRus For This Post:

    Mad Hatter (16th October 2011), NancyV (6th September 2011), silvanelf (17th October 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 3 4 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts