Nassim Haramein deemed "not a person of note" by wikipedia

[Seikou-Kishi]

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)

Posted by Seikou-Kishi (here)

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)

Posted by Seikou-Kishi (here)
Lol, I really love this about wikipedia. They don't allow any information that hasn't been rubber-stamped by consensus. In other words, wikipedia is like a Roman Catholic dicastery making pronunciations on dogma — no dissenting opinion allowed.

When I read this one, it made me think of a bunch of church authorities getting together to decide how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.
Don't laugh, they really did meet and discuss this.

Actually my grandmother used to tell us that when we were children. She'd always say "religion is the arena in which mediocre men shine" and warn us not to contract the "contagious stupidity" lol... old people have such a way with words :D

Sounds like you were lucky in that the family you joined had their heads on straight.

My grandmother would be offended to hear she might not be a crazy old bat after all :D

[Mad Hatter]

W hat
I diot
C learly
K inks
I ignorant
P eoples
E expectations
D riving
I inapropriate
A ffectation

Nassim Haramein’s award winning scientific paper, “The Schwarzschild Proton,” has passed the peer review process and has been published at the American Institute of Physics (AIP) Conference Proceedings.

Awarded by the attendees of a COMPUTER conference for the best paper on an incidental subject matter they probably new very little about...

A footnote in the journal noting he presented a paper at a conference ... yup... that's real rigor right there in the lets claim peer review process...

Discernment has left the building folks...

If I'm wrong, since I happen to like a lot of what Nassim discusses, I'd be truly delighted to be pointed at the ISSN of the journal that actually printed the formally peer reviewed paper...

[TWINCANS]

Wiki also deleted Ted Andrews page the day after he died. His 2 reference books alone on animal totem symbolism were enough to recommend him. He also wrote over 40 other books which have been translated into more than two dozen foreign languages. He was into esoteric stuff they didn't understand I guess. They wanted support for him as an important writer and the sound of his puiblisher and all his fans clamouring wasn't enough for them. Ridiculous

[1derer]

Posted by Mad Hatter (here)
W hat
I diot
C learly
K inks
I ignorant
P eoples
E expectations
D riving
I inapropriate
A ffectation

Nassim Haramein’s award winning scientific paper, “The Schwarzschild Proton,” has passed the peer review process and has been published at the American Institute of Physics (AIP) Conference Proceedings.

Awarded by the attendees of a COMPUTER conference for the best paper on an incidental subject matter they probably new very little about...

A footnote in the journal noting he presented a paper at a conference ... yup... that's real rigor right there in the lets claim peer review process...

Discernment has left the building folks...

If I'm wrong, since I happen to like a lot of what Nassim discusses, I'd be truly delighted to be pointed at the ISSN of the journal that actually printed the formally peer reviewed paper...

I'm just forwarding the website and the info contained therein for others to judge, no need to denigrate.

here is further information to provide a more balanced viewpoint

http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/...ge-part-2.html

And just because he hasn't been published it does not mean that all he says is poppycock.

[ThePythonicCow]

Nassim has good company. Paul LaViolette (whose physics I prefer to Nassim's) was also removed from Wikipedia, a year ago:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaViolette (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaViolette (3rd nomination)

From the comments on these two pages, it seems that Wikipedia is keen to well established knowledge, an online encyclopedia, not a research or investigation resource. This includes weeding out biographies that lack a sufficient quantity and quality of references.

[araucaria]

Some people get AIDS, on wikeipedia you get 'AIDed'. It's easy just to give wiki a miss on any web search - it's always at the top of page one. Just scroll down for something more interesting

[Gardener]

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable or factual source in academic institutions and students are recommended not to use it for information. So although wicki attempts to sound and operate factually it isn't. Its sculpted information, formed to fit when necessary. Though no doubt a lot of the information is factual a lot is biased by the selective monitoring as in the OP.

[Ultima Thule]

Which one do you see as more compelling evidence that someone is on to something?

- If a person has a radical idea and he is completely ignored and stuff about him is plainly in sight in wikipedia
or
- If a person has a radical idea and he is purposefully removed from wikipedia

My money is on the latter. If a radical idea does not produce a storm of denial, it is probably not worth a second look.

Juha

[music]

The thing is, had there been wikipedia at certain dates in history, the likes of Galileo Galilei, Copernicus, Newton and Einstein would have been deleted at selected moments in their careers.

[Sirius White]

This disgusts me.

But do not worry....

Why not worry? Because the coming change is inevitable, and it is those mainstream scientists that will look like idiots, if not be kissing the feet of the pioneers who pushed forward even though entire institutions ignored them.

[RMorgan]

Nassim´s work has always caused polemics. If you really research about him, you´ll see that his work is half pure speculation and half scientific. Of course, there´s no such thing as mainstream science. Anytime that a scientist come up with a new theory, he has to apply many many scientific methodological techniques to thoroughly prove this theory over and over again. That´s science, just science.

I have a few very good physicist friends. None of them are evil man payed by the PTB. They are just good men making good and solid works. All of them, when introduced to Nassim´s work, could point me several basic mistakes that he´s doing with his work.

In order to be scientific, you have to follow certain rules, rules that are pretty solid. You can´t work with calculation, if you don´t agree that 1+1=2, right? That´s the same thing.

About Wikipedia, it´s just not a good source of information anyway, but they are trying to improve it. It´s not supposed to be an oracle. It´s supposed to be a tool to help ordinary people, mostly students. Imagine if a student was asked to do a research on physics and came up with a work talking about Nassim´s "theories". He would get a C- or a D.

Nassim´s work, despite being very interesting, hasn´t been proved to be scientifically accurate, by the use of scientific methodology, yet.

About Tesla, someone commented that he was an outcast, but it´s totally wrong. He was a huge celebrity on most part of his career.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Science has almost all of its facts wrong. So, to use it to disclaim a pioneer in the field of physics means nothing.
No need to go into specifics.
Science is a best guess hypothosis that has been elevated to dogmatic status.
We know nothing about reality and science merely underlines that fact.
Wickipedia is a farse, since when did they become an authority. I would not use them for anything but entertainment.
Simply using my own powers of discernment I can tell you that Nassim and LaViolette are onto something and the scientific establishment is not happy about it.
No one likes their boat rocked...

[RMorgan]

You know what´s a big problem with being a scientist? The problem is that everyone in the world think they are scientists as well. The fact is that, to be a scientist, specially if you want to be a recognized one, you have to work hard, pretty hard. It´s even harder when everyone around you, scientists and non-scientists, think that they are competent enough to judge your work.

Imagine for an engineer building a bridge or a huge complex building , if everyone would come up with an "alternative" idea for them!! Would you live in an "alternative" 20 stores building? Would you drive with your family trough a 500m "alternative" bridge?

That´s why there are rules in science and these very basic rules must be followed. Would you like to have an atomic energy facility, or a huge dam, built on your town, by an "alternative" scientist or engineer?

Nassim´s is very good on stage. He´s really passionate and charismatic, but that´s not enough for me to completely trust his work.

As I´ve said before, I have very good friends who are physicists. One of them is considered to be a genius. So, when I exposed them to Nassim´s work, and they told and explained me why his work is far from accurate, I´d rather trust them, than to trust the "expert" physicists that lives inside everyone of us.

[Ernie Nemeth]

You make a compelling argument, based upon the current model of society. However, I observe that the marvelous feats of science have resulted in devastation to our environment and ourselves. I see 20,00 children dying every day of hunger in this so-called modern world. I feel sickened by the endless wars and the manipulation of entire countries and now entire regions of the globe by greedy bankers and corporations. Our sophistication is a sham designed to hide the obvious in plain sight. We do not know anything with certainty and so, we know nothing at all.

Sure, we can manipulate our model of the atom, cause perturbations in the ether in various ways and call it by various names and exploit the seeming laws of nature to bend to our will. These are all neccessary steps a society must take, I agree. But if these efforts are not directed by loving, caring, responsible, insightful, honorable decree those efforts are wasted and potentially hazardous to life itself.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
Science has almost all of its facts wrong. So, to use it to disclaim a pioneer in the field of physics means nothing.
...
Simply using my own powers of discernment I can tell you that Nassim and LaViolette are onto something and the scientific establishment is not happy about it.
No one likes their boat rocked...

I'll agree that "accepted" science has fundamental problems in its theories, and closes its eyes to whatever facts would disprove those theories.

So, yes, using accepted theories to disprove pioneering efforts to express alternative theories means little or nothing.

On the other hand, just because accepted theories reject an alternative effort does not mean that particular alternative effort is onto something useful. Do not confuse being ridiculed with being right.

But the rejections by some such as myself of Nassim's physics are not based on "accepted" science, but on his own physics not providing a sound and consistent theoretical basis ... not even close. Wikipedia has different reasons than I do; they are intentionally recording "accepted" knowledge ... and neither Nassim nor LaViolette are "accepted".

I agree with you that LaViolette is onto something with his physics (subquantum kinetics.)

[RMorgan]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
You make a compelling argument, based upon the current model of society. However, I observe that the marvelous feats of science have resulted in devastation to our environment and ourselves. I see 20,00 children dying every day of hunger in this so-called modern world. I feel sickened by the endless wars and the manipulation of entire countries and now entire regions of the globe by greedy bankers and corporations. Our sophistication is a sham designed to hide the obvious in plain sight. We do not know anything with certainty and so, we know nothing at all.

Sure, we can manipulate our model of the atom, cause perturbations in the ether in various ways and call it by various names and exploit the seeming laws of nature to bend to our will. These are all neccessary steps a society must take, I agree. But if these efforts are not directed by loving, caring, responsible, insightful, honorable decree those efforts are wasted and potentially hazardous to life itself.

I agree 100% Ernie. We live in a society where our best scientific and general discoveries are always distorted for evil purposes.

Santos Dumont, the inventor of the airplane, killed himself, when he saw his invention being used to drop bombs and kill people on wars.

Cheers,

Raf.

[music]

Why is there no room for intuition in science? My younger brother was an intuitive mathematician. He unfailingly was 100% correct, even when he started high school and was introduced to algebra and complex calculations. But he didn't need to calculate - the answer just rose up in his mind. Consequently, as far as society was concerned, he was a mathematical dullard, because most of the marks in a maths exam are for showing your working out. The school system is very inflexible about that, so my brother lost all interest in education.

A true scientist will tell you this: there is no truth, there are no facts, merely hypotheses that are yet to be disproved.

[RMorgan]

Posted by music (here)
Why is there no room for intuition in science? My younger brother was an intuitive mathematician. He unfailingly was 100% correct, even when he started high school and was introduced to algebra and complex calculations. But he didn't need to calculate - the answer just rose up in his mind. Consequently, as far as society was concerned, he was a mathematical dullard, because most of the marks in a maths exam are for showing your working out. The school system is very inflexible about that, so my brother lost all interest in education.

A true scientist will tell you this: there is no truth, there are no facts, merely hypotheses that are yet to be disproved.

You are correct about your brother. It´s great to work with both sides of the brain. In fact, every amazing scientist we´ve met along history, is also very intuitive and creative. Creativity and intuition are essential in every profession, if you want to be one of the best.

However, science is not like art. You can be a creative genius in physics, but you still have to prove your work using the currently established methodologies.

It´s very easy to get completely lost within creativity and intuition.

Cheers,

Raf.

[NeverMind]

Why is there no room for intuition in science?

Who says there is no room for intuition in science?
On the contrary, Einstein - to name just one - valued it higher than many other paths, and he said so quite explicitly.

But, like RMorgan said, the findings envisaged by means of intuition still have to be demonstrated and validated using the consensual standards of any given science.... OR the according new theory must be developed and demonstrated.

[RMorgan]

Posted by NeverMind (here)

Why is there no room for intuition in science?

Who says there is no room for intuition in science?
On the contrary, Einstein - to name just one - valued it higher than many other paths, and he said so quite explicitly.

But, like RMorgan said, the findings envisaged by means of intuition still have to be demonstrated and validated using the consensual standards of any given science.... OR the according new theory must be developed and demonstrated.

Spot on, my friend!