Nassim Haramein: Fraud or Sage?

[CyRus]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by CyRus (here)
If any of you feel that way inclined, one can disprove Haramein's theories like this:
.
- The crux of Haramein's theory is that there is a black hole in the centre of an atom. (Whatever the f*** that means..)

It's really a simple concept. how do you think it is that electrons break the "law of entropy" ? how is it that the strong force and weak force function? why does Archimedes principle function as it does?

ALL of this is explained by SINGULARITY (oneness, aka a black hole) at the center of every "atom" (I'm not saying its the absolute truth, but I am saying it makes a lot more sense than anything else I've studied)

Posted by CyRus (here)
Therefore, let us examine this claim:
Firstly, for those of you unfamiliar with this term, take a look at this link: http://physics.about.com/od/astronomy/f/BlackHole.htm In layman's terms, it is an object with such an enormous mass and gravitational pull that it literally curves spacetime. (Literally, freakin' heavy!) Now let us go back to Haramein's claim that all of our atoms are black holes. Roughly calculated, there are approximately 7x10^27 atoms in the human body. (That is, 7 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.....) Reference:http://education.jlab.org/qa/mathatom_04.html Therefore, judging by Haramein's logic, our body is composed of 7 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 black holes!

Does this make logical sense? We know that 1 single black hole can curve spacetime, and according to Haramein, we have 7 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 black holes in our body(!). Wouldn't this then logically suggest that we ourselves would curve spacetime?? Do we do this?? NO!
Therefore, it is bollocks!

The curving of space time is based on E=MC^2 which is KNOWN TO BE FLAWED ( http:\\http://www.science-site.net/Flaw_in_...9;s_Theory.htm http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...6mar_einstein/ etc..)... your entire premise is junk at this point.

Posted by CyRus (here)
Also, as I have stated time and time again, his 'peer reviewed' paper is a deception. It was awarded best physics paper at a computer systems conference, which is equivalent to winning "The Best Dog" at a cat conference

Yeah, computer systems (especially quantum computing) has NOTHING to do with science... right....

Posted by CyRus (here)
... In addition to this, he keeps saying his paper is 'in the process of peer review'.
He has been saying this for the past 7 years!! ----> it is rubbish!

Yeah?

One of the most common complaints about the peer review process is that it is slow, and that it typically takes several months or even several years in some fields for a submitted paper to appear in print

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Posted by CyRus (here)
No scientist gives any acknowledgement to his inane theories whatsoever, because they have ZERO scientific merit. As I have tried to explain as simply as I can, and I hope you now start to see why he, in my opinion, is a fraud.

yes, you definitely have "simple" covered.

Posted by CyRus (here)
This is just in layman's terms. If you take a look at his 'paper': "The Schwartzchild Proton", you can see for yourselves how simple it is. All he does, is he finds a relatively simple formula from a physics textbook, misuses it, and then spins a story out of his result. Utter rubbish!

unorthodox, yes, rubbish? what is your qualification again? I say give his material a chance, it corroborates a lot of other theories out there, but DO REMEMBER these are all (ALL) theories..

Okay, where to start with this:
Well firstly, you obviously know f*ck all about Archimede's principle. Care to explain to me what you think a 'singularity' has to do with Archimede's principle? Archimede's principle is basically that: "The weight of the displaced fluid is directly proportional to the volume of the displaced fluid (if the surrounding fluid is of uniform density). In simple terms, the principle states that the buoyant force on an object is going to be equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object, or the density of the fluid multiplied by the submerged volume times the gravitational constant, g. Thus, among completely submerged objects with equal masses, objects with greater volume have greater buoyancy." It has absolutely NOTHING to do with any form of singularity, 'mainstream' physics knows exactly how this works! Also, what do you mean by electrons "breaking the law of entropy"? Sounds like bollocks to me!

Regarding my qualifications, I would be so arrogant to state that I am much more qualified than Haramein, since I have actually had several college physics courses, where he is merely pulling theories out of his own black hole! Of course, I forgot, "academia haZ been infiltrated by the PTB, everything that is taught there is RuBBiSh! I b3lieve this thanks to a handful of people's testimony on the interWeb! I am so awake and open-mind3d, damn the sh33ples!"........

[000]

Posted by CyRus (here)
The majority of this forum prefer to believe in fairy tales rather than the truth, as is evident by the way the fawn over every new "whistleblower" without a critical thought. It is obvious that scepticality and critical thinking is severely lacking in the forum at this time, which is one of the reasons I very rarely frequent here anymore.

A little tip... you are participating in a forum of many very open minds. Some minds here may be more open than you are comfortable with. If you want to participate in good discussion rather than feel like you are being crucified, you might want to be *just* a bit less critical of others who's views are much different to your own. They might not respond well to your passive aggressive jabs!

Critical Thinking is indeed beneficial, but it also means you must question the status quo as well and not blindly accept it as gospel. This forum is filled with individuals who use both Critical Thinking and Divergent Thinking.

Please take a look in the mirror before ripping in to others baselessly.

[TargeT]

Posted by CyRus (here)
Okay, where to start with this:
Well firstly, you obviously know f*ck all about Archimede's principle. Care to explain to me what you think a 'singularity' has to do with Archimede's principle? Archimede's principle is basically that: "The weight of the displaced fluid is directly proportional to the volume of the displaced fluid (if the surrounding fluid is of uniform density). In simple terms, the principle states that the buoyant force on an object is going to be equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object, or the density of the fluid multiplied by the submerged volume times the gravitational constant, g. Thus, among completely submerged objects with equal masses, objects with greater volume have greater buoyancy." It has absolutely NOTHING to do with any form of singularity, 'mainstream' physics knows exactly how this works! Also, what do you mean by electrons "breaking the law of entropy"? Sounds like bollocks to me!

Regarding my qualifications, I would be so arrogant to state that I am much more qualified than Haramein, since I have actually had several college physics courses, where he is merely pulling theories out of his own black hole! Of course, I forgot, "academia haZ been infiltrated by the PTB, everything that is taught there is RuBBiSh! I b3lieve this thanks to a handful of people's testimony on the interWeb! I am so awake and open-mind3d, damn the sh33ples!"........

Archimede's principle also states: An object weighs less in water than it does in the air ( and even in air an object weighs less than it would in a vacume) how do you explain this, could it not be that the individual "gravitational" pull of the atoms surrounding the object is greater in air than a vacume & greater in a denser substance (water) than in air (a less dense gas) do I need to break this down further or are you getting it now?

I'd say there's a very clear and obvious connection there, if you don't see it (now... /sigh) then I can try to reword and explain it again.. clearly YOU don't know F-all about archimedes principle.. or is that all you read based on your google search? ( nice job btw, I feel a bit of an ego flare up right now,, I'll leave that statement as is though)

care to offer anything else or is that it?

btw entropy is part of what is used to "prove" that "over unity" or "perpetual motion" (sound familiar? are atoms perpetual motion or not?) is "impossible" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

more "proof" that we think we know a lot, but we really understand (main stream) very little.

also, I believe the bolded statement is a clear example of a logical fallacy (I'm still learning to spot them) I'll call that one ad homienom, seems like a good example of that, thanks for the practice.

[cellardoor]

Posted by CyRus (here)

Posted by cellardoor (here)

Posted by CyRus (here)

Does this make logical sense? We know that 1 single black hole can curve spacetime, and according to Haramein, we have 7 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 black holes in our body(!). Wouldn't this then logically suggest that we ourselves would curve spacetime?? Do we do this?? NO!
Therefore, it is bollocks!

Do we curve space time? Of course we do! Our bodies have mass, all mass has gravity, gravity according to Einstein, is the effect mass has on space time. Therefore you're talking Bollocks! Do me a favour, don't preach about discernment before spewing pig **** about things you clearly don't understand. You say the quality of info on this forum is bad. Perhaps you would like it better in play school. The learning is easier there. Have fun.

Such vitriol! =) Okay, firstly, are you saying that we curve space as much as a black hole? Then explain to me why the galaxy allegedly rotates around a black hole? Since obviously, since we have 7*10^27 black holes each (7x10^27 * 7 000 000 000 = approx. 49*10^36 black holes altogether), then surely it should, if anything, revolve around us. According to Haramein at least...

We are talking about quantum Black holes which have yet to be discovered by the main stream. A black hole rips the fabric of space time. Is that what you mean?

[Omni connexae!]

"You can't reason someone out of a belief they did not reason themselves into."


Cognitive bias

cy@

[truthseekerdan]

Posted by Omni connexae! (here)
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they did not reason themselves into."


Cognitive bias

cy@

Reasoning "someone out of a belief" -- it's a belief in itself...


Much Love

[Omni connexae!]

An absence of a belief =/= a belief

I realise now, many live by emotion, not by intellectualising. A person with arachnophobia can tell themselves there is no reason to be afraid of spiders, though this intellectual understanding does not stifle the emotional response. There's a divide. It's why people can do calculus yet still believe the bible. The only way I could explain this stuff is by appealing your guys emotions, not your intellect, not by educating you. People similarly educated will act in different ways, their emotions interpret the data, emotion being the mediator between head and hands.

If you want people to buy your product, your idea, you don't tell them the merits of your way over the status quo, you convince them your idea will get them what their emotions want more than the old idea. Coke sells their customers coke with tits, not with a list of ingredients. I don't like appealing to emotions, that's the tactic of propaganda. I like to appeal to reason and true understanding. So, I'll just drop it now.

[cellardoor]

Interesting fact; dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe.
Michio Kaku

"…the visible matter we see around us (including the mountains, planets, stars and galaxies) makes up a paltry 4 percent of the total matter and energy content of the universe. (Of that 4 percent, most of it is in the form of hydrogen and helium, and probably only 0.03 percent takes the form of the heavy elements). Most of the universe is actually made of mysterious, invisible material of totally unknown origin. The familiar elements that make up our world constitute only 0.03 percent of the universe. In some sense, science is being thrown back centuries into the past, before the rise of the atomic hypothesis, as physicists grapple with the fact that the universe is dominated by new, unknown forms of matter and energy…23 percent of the universe is made of a strange, undetermined substance called dark matter, which has weight, surrounds the galaxies in a gigantic halo, but is totally invisible…. it bends starlight, just like glass, and hence can be located by the amount of optical distortion it creates.

[truthseekerdan]

Believing is not enough. One can believe in a lie.

Belief = Uncertainty

Knowing is what's important...

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...verything...--

[TargeT]

Posted by cellardoor (here)
Interesting fact; dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe.
Michio Kaku

This has been known to Satanic practitioners for a while:



"it's always easier to reach down, than to reach up"

[cellardoor]

Indeed! Though I'd like it to be called Light matter/energy. A little less foreboding.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by CyRus (here)
As I have stated before, there is undoubtedly something 'missing' in physics and I believe perhaps consciousness plays a role in this fact, but Haramein's theories are complete nonsense! If any of you feel that way inclined, one can disprove Haramein's theories like this:

...

Utter rubbish!

Agreed - 100%.

Nassim may advocate many positions that are appreciated and accepted by many members here, including myself in some cases. And he speaks with a flair that draws in an appreciative audience.

But his physics is utter rubbish.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by TargeT (here)
ALL of this is explained by SINGULARITY (oneness, aka a black hole) at the center of every "atom" (I'm not saying its the absolute truth, but I am saying it makes a lot more sense than anything else I've studied)

Yes, all things, true or false, logically follow from falsehood (sorry, that's the math logician in me speaking ... let me translate ...)

Yes, current "conventional" physics is broken ... does not explain some basic things.

That does not mean that anything that purports to be physics, that purports to explain these basics, and that clearly opposes conventional physics is right.

The answer lies outside the box. But not everything outside the box is an answer.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by cellardoor (here)
Therefore you're talking Bollocks! Do me a favour, don't preach about discernment before spewing pig **** about things you clearly don't understand. You say the quality of info on this forum is bad. Perhaps you would like it better in play school. The learning is easier there. Have fun.

cellardoor -- it looks to me like you turned a discussion of Nassim's physics into an attack on a fellow forum member.

You got lucky this time ... the food fight had already settled back down by the time I noticed.

When I have to clean up a food fight in progress, posts tend to get edited or deleted, and/or people tend to get vacations.

Such ad hominem attacks are a violation of forum guidelines.

[TargeT]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by TargeT (here)
ALL of this is explained by SINGULARITY (oneness, aka a black hole) at the center of every "atom" (I'm not saying its the absolute truth, but I am saying it makes a lot more sense than anything else I've studied)

Yes, all things, true or false, logically follow from falsehood (sorry, that's the math logician in me speaking ... let me translate ...)

Yes, current "conventional" physics is broken ... does not explain some basic things.

That does not mean that anything that purports to be physics, that purports to explain these basics, and that clearly opposes conventional physics is right.

The answer lies outside the box. But not everything outside the box is an answer.

I think you may have highlighted a possible block

We do agree (fundamentally) I however (based on a LOT of things) am going with this idea for now.

This theory explains:

The sun & how it functions

The Electromagnetic field around the earth and how it's too strong for current conventional "wisdom"

The fact that oil is created (expanding earth theory)

The way electric/magnetic/gravitational forces are always present together.

& a few other things I don't recall at this time, you maybe have a math logic background, I have a pattern analysis background & this pattern is coming together rather nicely (a good skill to have I've found, in this fractal reality we exist in).

my only concern is that fractaly, a black hole at the center of an atom is not conducive to "fractal reality" theories which seem so neat & reliable (though how can I even commit to that when a black hole (according to nassiem) is singularity.. everything is contained with in it so perhaps it does work after all....)

[RMorgan]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by TargeT (here)
ALL of this is explained by SINGULARITY (oneness, aka a black hole) at the center of every "atom" (I'm not saying its the absolute truth, but I am saying it makes a lot more sense than anything else I've studied)

Yes, all things, true or false, logically follow from falsehood (sorry, that's the math logician in me speaking ... let me translate ...)

Yes, current "conventional" physics is broken ... does not explain some basic things.

That does not mean that anything that purports to be physics, that purports to explain these basics, and that clearly opposes conventional physics is right.

The answer lies outside the box. But not everything outside the box is an answer.

Hey Paul,

I agree.

As I´ve said before, there´s a very thin line between out-of-the-box innovation and out-of-the-box bull****.

It looks to me that there´s a tendency here towards praising anything "alternative" that contradicts anything "mainstream". This is nonsense.

This kind of labeling drives me nuts sometimes.

There are many amazing things in the so called "mainstream". Just look at the past century! How many amazing inventions and technologies were introduced by the so called "establishment" or "mainstream"? Now, how many amazing inventions/technologies/theories were introduced by the "alternative"?

Besides, any successful "mainstream" idea was "alternative" before becoming popular. Just like any "alternative" idea that happens to be feasible and successful will become "mainstream" one day, and part of the so demonized "establishment".

So, what´s the point?

Cheers,

Raf.



Cheers,

Raf.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by CyRus (here)
... Haramein's theories are complete nonsense! If any of you feel that way inclined, one can disprove Haramein's theories like this:

...

Utter rubbish!

Posted by Paul (here)
But [Haramein's] physics is utter rubbish.

I'm guessing that you're both hinting ()that Haramein takes something theoretical, calls it fact, and builds from that. At some point, some level of the argument (or maybe even the original theory/"fact") was wrong, and further fallacies are built upon the first fallacy. Can you "nail" where Haramein does this? (assuming he does this)

And hopefully, it is something that can be explained so that even someone with rusty high school (secondary) physics - and maybe a teaspoon of quantum physics concepts - level of understanding can grasp it.

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by TargeT (here)
This theory explains:

If I purchase a food processor at the local big box store that claims on the box to "Dice, Slice, Shred, Grate, Julienne, Mix, Chop, Puree, Blend and Knead", but if the motor in it is hopelessly and irreparably broken due to a fundamentally failed design, I don't have a food processor. I have a piece of junk in a pretty box.

Nassim's "theory" (it hardly deserves such a label) is hopeless. He can spin whatever explanations he wants from it .. and he's good at doing so. ... still hopeless.

[RMorgan]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

Posted by CyRus (here)
... Haramein's theories are complete nonsense! If any of you feel that way inclined, one can disprove Haramein's theories like this:

...

Utter rubbish!

Posted by Paul (here)
But [Haramein's] physics is utter rubbish.

I'm guessing that you're both hinting ()that Haramein takes something theoretical, calls it fact, and builds from that. At some point, some level of the argument (or maybe even the original theory/"fact") was wrong, and further fallacies are built upon the first fallacy. Can you "nail" where Haramein does this? (assuming he does this)

And hopefully, it is something that can be explained so that even someone with rusty high school (secondary) physics - and maybe a teaspoon of quantum physics concepts - level of understanding can grasp it.

Dennis

Hey Dennis,

You´ll be able to get it if you read this article:

http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/...nassim.html#s2

There are some quite simple explanations here, showing some of Nassim´s flaws.

Cheers,

Raf.

[TargeT]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by TargeT (here)
This theory explains:

If I purchase a food processor at the local big box store that claims on the box to "Dice, Slice, Shred, Grate, Julienne, Mix, Chop, Puree, Blend and Knead", but if the motor in it is hopelessly and irreparably broken due to a fundamentally failed design, I don't have a food processor. I have a piece of junk in a pretty box.

Nassim's "theory" (it hardly deserves such a label) is hopeless. He can spin whatever explanations he wants from it .. and he's good at doing so. ... still hopeless.

This conversation is a little lopsided, I've offered a lot of supporting evidence to back up why I agree with it, you offer "hopless", are you tired of this topic?

Sorry I do not care what you "feel" about this topic, I want to know what you KNOW about this topic, please disect his theory in an inteligent way, else your posts are sort of a waste to read (and not really condusive to debate, conversation etc..)

thanks

****edit****

Like this:

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Hey Dennis,

You´ll be able to get it if you read this article:

http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/...nassim.html#s2

There are some quite simple explanations here, showing some of Nassim´s flaws.

Cheers,

Raf.

I can't read "blogspot" at work, can someone paste the text of that?