Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?

[CyRus]

Hi all,
I start this thread with trepidation, as I am fully aware that there are a great many supporters of Haramein within this forum and in the alternative community as a whole.
The thread title was inspired by this blog:
http://azureworld.blogspot.com
Where a physics teacher objectively points out the errors and fraudulent claims made by Haramein.

This man is very fair and makes an excellent case and in my eyes Haramein is conclusively debunked. I think it vital that anyone who are massive fans of Haramein at least take a look, and perhaps learn some physics in the process. (Very informative!)
As you all know, there are a great many frauds within the alternative community. People who either consciously or unknowingly provide fraudulent information in order to make a buck.

I find it vital therefore to inform and educate on anyone who might be a fraud, and feel this will benefit the alternative community as a whole by "separating the wheat from the chaff". :p

Whether Haramein is deliberately misleading the populace is something I strongly doubt. Rather, I believe Haramein is a man with delusions of grandeur. Theories he has made up that he believes is physics, but lacks the mathematical and scientific knowledge to back them up.

I am aware that I most probably am stepping on many toes with this thread, and know that many people might find their belief systems "attacked" (for lack of a better word), and I apologize profoundly.

Nevertheless, this is a forum. An outlet for differing opinions and the flourishing of discussions. I welcome any views and objections, and am looking forward to a stimulating debate. =)

[conk]

As a layman I find his videos very interesting. A simple mind can understand some of the concepts. Who knows, not me. I'm not educated enough in the sciences to determine his authenticity or credibility. I do know that much of what mainstream, commonly accepted science says is in need of challenge. Physics tout some principle, but the equation would be something like: a/bx (E = xxb) x (we don't know) = our best guess. So, some of the accepted science has big holes in it. Entrenched scientists most certainly resist change or affront to their cherished theories. I say challenge the hell out of them. Nassim might be the guy. There is lots of exciting information on the edge. Anyone up on their votex based math?

[CyRus]

As a layman I find his videos very interesting. A simple mind can understand some of the concepts. Who knows, not me. I'm not educated enough in the sciences to determine his authenticity or credibility. I do know that much of what mainstream, commonly accepted science says is in need of challenge. Physics tout some principle, but the equation would be something like: a/bx (E = xxb) x (we don't know) = our best guess. So, some of the accepted science has big holes in it. Entrenched scientists most certainly resist change or affront to their cherished theories. I say challenge the hell out of them. Nassim might be the guy. There is lots of exciting information on the edge. Anyone up on their votex based math?
Actually, most mainstream science is pretty much right on the money. The existing models such as Classic Mechanics, General Relativity, Special Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Electrodynamics predict our physical world to a great detail. The problem it faces now is to combine the areas, as Classic Mechanics and Relativity are at odds with Quantum Mechanics, although both work. (As far as I understand it, but my knowledge of theoretical physics is limited at best, as I have only done engineering physics which is much more practical) This is the paradox, and also several of the more fundamental concepts such as the origin of mass and consciousness etc.

The problem with Haramein is that he cannot be called a physicist, because his "equations" defy the laws of physics profusely. (As stated, he is not a prominent mathematician) Therefore, I find him to be a fraud, as he is misleading the public to think he is a maverick physicist...which is incorrect.
At best he is a New Age philosopher, but a physicist...No. =P

[ROMANWKT]

Nassim Haramein, I love that guy, I have followed all his work, he always has a great way of opening ones mind, and see what he is seeing.

I am downloading the 51 min video and shall with interest hear the counter knowledge.

Thank you Cyrus
roman

[CyRus]

Nassim Haramein, I love that guy, I have followed all his work, he always has a great way of opening ones mind, and see what he is seeing.

I am downloading the 51 min video and shall with interest hear the counter knowledge.

Thank you Cyrus
roman

No problem Roman, and I appreciate your open mind! :P
(Edited: My words can be misinterpreted)
What I meant was, I appreciate the fact that you are willing to look at both sides of this issue. ;)

[CyRus]

As a layman I find his videos very interesting. A simple mind can understand some of the concepts. Who knows, not me. I'm not educated enough in the sciences to determine his authenticity or credibility. I do know that much of what mainstream, commonly accepted science says is in need of challenge. Physics tout some principle, but the equation would be something like: a/bx (E = xxb) x (we don't know) = our best guess. So, some of the accepted science has big holes in it. Entrenched scientists most certainly resist change or affront to their cherished theories. I say challenge the hell out of them. Nassim might be the guy. There is lots of exciting information on the edge. Anyone up on their votex based math?
I do agree with the fact that some of the most paradigm shifting research is done by mavericks on the edge. Plate tectonics were one such example. Also, it is true that some scientists are dogmatic in their beliefs..specifically in the belief of materialism (which I think has been somewhat dead since the discovery of Quantum Electrodynamics) but I would like to believe that most scientists are honest men who would accept the evidence if it was provided. The sad fact is that most paradigm breaking research lacks funding due to the dogmatic attitudes of the scientific "hierarchy" and also the whim of the government.

[eaglespirit]

My Analogy...
Haramein is to Physics/Science as Grof is to Psychiatry/Medicine


for reference...Stan Grof's book, When the Impossible Happens

[Ilie Pandia]

My take on this:

- I went trough school and the physics there did not make as much sense as the 8 hour presentation of Nassim Haramein. If he is a good scientist or simply a charming presenter I could not say

- Using a 3D modeling Software I have followed his 3d fractals multiplying and dividing and it works

- His work has a certain beauty that "main-stream" science does not

- He has put a lot of "thinking-for-yourself" in building his presentation and writing his paper. Even if it proves to be wrong is much better than regurgitating "half-explained" scientific "truths" and memorizing "other's-people-work".

- We at Avalon know that much of the "science" taught in school is outdated. Using "outdated science" to debunk Haramein may not provide valuable results

- Does any of my above statements have any "scientific value" - probably not :).

But I can not say that Nassim's work is totaly debunked. I will say: I do not know!

[Ilie Pandia]

The article (http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/nassims-response-to-bobathon.html) on the blog in the original post is dated: July 22nd 2010. That is old (in the sense that since then Nassim has published his work and his paper has passed peer review).

Nassim Haramein has published his work (contrary the the claims on that blog) on December 6th 2010: See here (http://theresonanceproject.org/blog/?p=179) and follow instructions. So he is not debunked just yet! ;)

[shiva777]

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%20Comers/intro_topic_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

[daledo]

At one point almost all scientists said that the earth was flat, THEY WERE WRONG. The education system is flawed because scientists have to adhere to certain codes of conduct in order to keep their jobs and get more federally funded grants in the future. Many scientists have written articles later to recant what they said because they were influenced by TPTB in one way or another. I do not trust what mainstream says because of all the agendas in play to keep the people in their little box.

[Icecold]

Bob Athon put up an extremely detailed and comprehensive argument against the theories of Nassim Haramein. He covers the entire theory.

Having read through the argument against the physics of .....the schwarzchild proton, it would seem that Haramein totally ignores many principles of physics to construct his theory.


TO NASSIM FROM BUBBUH:

THE MORE POLYSYLLABIC WORDS YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING, THE LESS YOU UNDERSTAND IT.

THROWING WORDS AT SOMETHING WILL NOT GET YOU ONE IOTA CLOSER TO COMPREHENDING IT...BUT IT DOES PUT ON A GOOD SHOW IF ONE'S PURPOSE IS TO IMPRESS CREDULOUS OR NAIVE FOLLOWERS.

AS RAMANA MAHARISHI ONCE WROTE, THE TRUTH CAN ONLY BE EXPRESSED IN SILENCE.


As a layman I find his videos very interesting.

I think that this is the perspective from which Haramein garners most of his support.

Layman are attracted to the claims because they do not understand the physics involved.

It would seem that in the final analysis, Haramein is just another new age prophet.


I believe in one mind and a higher power but I also believe there is so much information out there and we need to investigate before we expand our inner instinct of believing everything we see and hear.



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

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


I've said it before...novelty rules the new age community...they don't want truth...they want entertainment. :cool:

[Elixer]

I haven't looked at the Nassim stuff yet, but want to comment on the Azurite debunking of the golden mean. That too me has to be wrong.

The golden mean is a ratio that is found all over nature, in your body, in your face, in plants, the DNA spiral. Anywhere.
The platonic solids like icosahedron, dodecahedron, are fundamental buillding blocks of our physical reality. Golden mean (phi) is inheherent in those shapes. Crystals grow in stages, from icosa to dodeca to icosa etc.
The golden mean to me is key to understanding the physical and beyond.

To say that this is based on false teachings, is like saying the cube is part false teachings. Perhaps I misunderstood what Asha' is trying to say here, but when you try to debunk phi, well, misinformation to say the least. (IMO)

That is my main problem with her work: It seems to try to scare you away from very basic, well established and potentially beautiful teachings. Don't get me wrong, a lot of established knowledge does need to be reviewed, revised and possibly thrown out. But the star tetrahedron, the flower of life, the golden mean rectangle are wrong? Come on.
If I dare say, it could even be considered luciferian to say make such claims.

I love the work of Dan Winter. He has many examples of structures based on phi and how they optimize fractality, increase growth rate, and basically just work in the utmost life-promoting way.
His work is very much in line with Nassim's (or vice versa). Dan also refers to Ashayana, but uses her old name.
Unfortunately his website seems to throw people off, but there are many videos there that discuss these topics and he is a very entertaining speaker.
http://www.goldenmean.info/

[StateOfTheHeart]

Thanks for the thread, I would 'sort of' like to know the answer to the question posed in the thread title. Most peer-reviews of Haramein, which I hear of, don't seem too positive, which is a shame... I watched his 8 hour lecture with great interest and would love for his stories to be true - and would be a little saddened for them not to be so... but the truth must be, regardless of what we like/dislike. I think my feelings on the matter are shared by a few people in this thread already.


My take on this:

- I went trough school and the physics there did not make as much sense as the 8 hour presentation of Nassim Haramein. If he is a good scientist or simply a charming presenter I could not say

- His work has a certain beauty that "main-stream" science does not

- He has put a lot of "thinking-for-yourself" in building his presentation and writing his paper. Even if it proves to be wrong is much better than regurgitating "half-explained" scientific "truths" and memorizing "other's-people-work".

- We at Avalon know that much of the "science" taught in school is outdated.[/B]

Yeah I agree with this I'd say. I might check out those critiques, thanks.

[noxon medem]

WHY (here it fits)
does it have to be

one definition (approach) Or another (one)

OR , this or that ( dual choice in a multiverse, not very practical .. )
well
not only do our perception of reality change fast and drasticly,
( so that we can barely hang in there, to keep up ...)
And then
Reality itself continualy changes, also,
with or without US
About and above us. ( wg Help us ..)


keep it flexible, and real
whatever that means to you

Thank You too ..
nm .

[greybeard]

Does he have to be either Fraud or Sage?
I believe he is dedicated to his work, right or wrong I cant say but he makes a very strong case that traditional understanding of what the Pyramids were for and how they were built is deeply flawed.
Time will tell.
There was another thread about his work here that said it had been accepted and validated by an American body not the Australian validation.
Einstein did not go up the university route either.
His talk on sacred geometry is interesting to say the least but if experts cant agree what hope have I?
He may just be right.
Chris

[Elixer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jayke]

Nassim will prove or disprove his own theories with his ability to put his thoughts into practical actions.
The acid test of his work won't come in the form of some 'peer review panel' but in his ability to create a technology based on his theories that enhance the quality of life in some way, even if one life enhancing technology comes out of his theories then it's going to be pretty hard to debunk him when you can hold a working practical model of it in your hand.

On a personal level i've had major breakthroughs in understanding how the universal mind works and the principles it operates on directly because of something I've heard Nassim talk about so I'm inclined to believe what he's saying is true... as i've been able to take those understandings and apply them in the field of hypnotherapy to really help people out and improve the way they function in the world, and if I've been able to develop a mind technology based on his principles, then I see no reason why elite academic scientists won't be able to come up with a working physical technology at some point in the future either. So I'm happy to reserve judgement, wait and see how it all pans out...let the scientific Goliaths battle it out while I feast on whatever crumbs of wisdom either side of the debate accidentally spill over in the process. :)

[Ilie Pandia]

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

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

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

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

[Tenzin]

Oh, neither a Fraud nor a Sage. A messenger rather. His advice to us all starts around clip 36 as follows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyTjSr9D9VU

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

[Elixer]

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

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

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

Bob's blog contains more of these 'misinterpretations'.
Also, check out the definition of Bob a-thon (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=b.+o : “b.o.b.-a-thon:) that Nassim points to, it's very funny:


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

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

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

Great thread.

[Maria Stade]

He is One of many messangers !

[Icecold]

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

?????????

The man has a big ego.

[Tenzin]

He is One of many messangers !

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

[CyRus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CyRus]

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

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

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

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

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

[CyRus]

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 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=b.+o : “b.o.b.-a-thon:) that Nassim points to, it's very funny:


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

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

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

Great thread.

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

[eaglespirit]

Oh, neither a Fraud nor a Sage. A messenger rather. His advice to us all starts around clip 36 as follows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyTjSr9D9VU

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

Great link and targeting, Tenzin, wishing you well!

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

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

[Ilie Pandia]

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

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

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

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

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

My statement is based on his paper being listed on this page (http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=APCPCS&Volume=1303&Issue=1). I am not 100% sure what it means, but that page says "American Institute of Physics". However I do not think anyone can publish stuff on that page... so it does give some credibility to Nassim.

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

[CyRus]

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

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

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

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

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

My statement is based on his paper being listed on this page (http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=APCPCS&Volume=1303&Issue=1). I am not 100% sure what it means, but that page says "American Institute of Physics". However I do not think anyone can publish stuff on that page... so it does give some credibility to Nassim.

"He has NOT been peer reviewed by any academic scientist, let me make that clear!" <-- Why do you say that? Based on what?
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/nassim-haramein-fraud-or-sage-part-2.html?commentPage=2&showComment=1293887957691#c8859272533708138673

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[CyRus]

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

[Ilie Pandia]

Cyrus,

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

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

[K626]

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

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

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


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

Klabs

[CyRus]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Thanks for the input,

[ThePythonicCow]

My statement is based on his paper being listed on this page (http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=APCPCS&Volume=1303&Issue=1). I am not 100% sure what it means, but that page says "American Institute of Physics". However I do not think anyone can publish stuff on that page... so it does give some credibility to Nassim.

"He has NOT been peer reviewed by any academic scientist, let me make that clear!" <-- Why do you say that? Based on what?
The AIP publishes conference proceedings. That is their commercial business. You can get a sense of this from their web page at http://proceedings.aip.org/organizers/publish_with_aip

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

The particular conference CASYS `09: Ninth International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems (http://www2.ulg.ac.be/mathgen/CHAOS/CASYS2009.htm) at which Nassim gave his paper does not really peer review in the traditional formal peer review sense by a major physics journal. Nassim was provided a room and microphone and gave his talk. He got some "best paper" award in some sub-category. His audience almost certainly (based in part on the subject matter of that conference) was not competent to judge the scientific merit of his work. That was the "peer review" process. Then his paper was included in the conference proceedings. (P.S. -- The above was written from two month old recollections. See further the note http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/nassim-haramein-fraud-or-sage-part-2.html?commentPage=2&showComment=1293887957691#c8859272533708138673 for details of the nature of this so called peer reviewed process.) (P.P.S. -- I see that CyRus already quoted the contents of this link, above in Post #30 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?17540-Nassim-Haramein-Fraud-or-Sage&p=189357&viewfull=1#post189357).)

You can get a sense of what other papers of dubious scientific merit show up at CASYS conferences in the post at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6685296&postcount=11

See further my debunking of Nassim in a post I made in January on some Charles thread ... Post #458 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?11154-Charles-comments-about-a-False-Flag-ET-threat-event-important-new-information&p=100775&viewfull=1#post100775). That post includes links to three other more careful debunking posts by others.

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

[CyRus]

My statement is based on his paper being listed on this page (http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=APCPCS&Volume=1303&Issue=1). I am not 100% sure what it means, but that page says "American Institute of Physics". However I do not think anyone can publish stuff on that page... so it does give some credibility to Nassim.

"He has NOT been peer reviewed by any academic scientist, let me make that clear!" <-- Why do you say that? Based on what?
The AIP publishes conference proceedings. That is their commercial business. You can get a sense of this from their web page at http://proceedings.aip.org/organizers/publish_with_aip

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

The particular conference CASYS `09: Ninth International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems (http://www2.ulg.ac.be/mathgen/CHAOS/CASYS2009.htm) at which Nassim gave his paper does not really peer review in the traditional formal peer review sense by a major physics journal. Nassim was provided a room and microphone and gave his talk. He got some "best paper" award in some sub-category. His audience almost certainly (based in part on the subject matter of that conference) was not competent to judge the scientific merit of his work. That was the "peer review" process. Then his paper was included in the conference proceedings.

You can get a sense of what other papers of dubious scientific merit show up at CASYS conferences in the post at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6685296&postcount=11

See further my debunking of Nassim in a post I made in January on some Charles thread ... Post #458 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?11154-Charles-comments-about-a-False-Flag-ET-threat-event-important-new-information&p=100775&viewfull=1#post100775). That post includes links to three other more careful debunking posts by others.

He gives good talk, and may well connect with some important spiritual ideas that I am not competent to discuss. But his physics is an enormous crock.
Excellent, very well put indeed!
I salute you fellow Avalonian... :P

[charlesfrith]

Peer review = sponsored group think. Nassim is fresh.

[MariaDine]

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%20Comers/intro_topic_summary_2.php

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

Hello Shiva ! :)

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

Namasté

[jorr lundstrom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dale]

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

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

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

[K626]

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

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

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

Not really as it wouldn't exist without us observing it.

K

[ThePythonicCow]

the next day the lack of that education can make you a fraud.
At no point did I comment Nassim's education.

His "thinking" is utter nonsense, smoke and mirrors made to sound persuasive to an audience with insufficient scientific thinking capabilities.

It does not bother me in the slightest that he tosses out most of modern physics. Modern physics will almost certainly join prior physics models in the trash heap at some point.

But it will not be replaced with this sort of fraudulent pseudo-spiritual babel fish nonsense. Of that I am certain.

[K626]

the next day the lack of that education can make you a fraud.
At no point did I comment Nassim's education.

His "thinking" is utter nonsense, smoke and mirrors made to sound persuasive to an audience with insufficient scientific thinking capabilities.

It does not bother me in the slightest that he tosses out most of modern physics. Modern physics will almost certainly join prior physics models in the trash heap at some point.

But it will not be replaced with this sort of fraudulent pseudo-spiritual babel fish nonsense. Of that I am certain.

Yup. And the reason is that our theories of the universe are in a constant state of flux as waves of new discoveries/observations/will replace old models. The universe is as much our projection as we are a projection of IT.

K

[CyRus]

the next day the lack of that education can make you a fraud.
At no point did I comment Nassim's education.

His "thinking" is utter nonsense, smoke and mirrors made to sound persuasive to an audience with insufficient scientific thinking capabilities.

It does not bother me in the slightest that he tosses out most of modern physics. Modern physics will almost certainly join prior physics models in the trash heap at some point.

But it will not be replaced with this sort of fraudulent pseudo-spiritual babel fish nonsense. Of that I am certain.

Yup. And the reason is that our theories of the universe are in a constant state of flux as waves of new discoveries/observations/will replace old models. The universe is as much our projection as we are a projection of IT.

K
You might be correct in this reasoning. The holographic universe is a rather strong theory I believe, and a device is being made to prove this fact.
I would like to take this opportunity to quote the English physicist, astronomer and mathematician James Hopwood Jeans:

""The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter."

[greybeard]

This may be off topic but is this man saying similar to Nassim or not?
Opinions appreciated

Chris



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFhlPdZ15Cs&feature=player_embedded

[Maria Stade]

Icecold
?????????

The man has a big ego.

LOL yes he has !

Maybe that is what is blocking some information flow and create resistans in others !

But on the other side of the coin if they would not have this ego they would maybe not say and share with others.

Or what do you think ??

Wilcox has one to LOL

But they are as they are and shine their truth as they understand it !

That is good enough.

[Icecold]

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

Agreed.

BTW Paul is exactly correct regarding the AIP conference proceedings. Anyone can submit a paper to a conference and talk about it. Peer review has nothing to do with it. Peer review is a generic term for a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. It usually is an extended process of submission and negotiation. He has not done this. This thread is a form of layman review and reflects what would happen during a peer review cycle.


Most members seem one day to be in total agreement that education is BS

Jorr dear friend, most members would agree that education systems as they exist today are BS. There is a difference.


"We have to create culture, don't watch TV, don't read magazines, don't even listen to NPR. Create your own roadshow. The nexus of space and time where you are now is the most immediate sector of your universe, and if you're worrying about Michael Jackson or Bill Clinton or (new age gurus), then you are disempowered, you're giving it all away to icons, icons which are maintained by an electronic media so that you want to dress like X or have lips like Y. This is ****-brained, this kind of thinking. That is all cultural diversion, and what is real is you and your friends and your associations, your highs, your orgasms, your hopes, your plans, your fears. And we are told 'no', we're unimportant, we're peripheral. 'Get a degree, get a job, get a this, get a that.' And then you're a player, you don't want to even play in that game. You want to reclaim your mind and get it out of the hands of the cultural engineers who want to turn you into a half-baked moron consuming all this trash that's being manufactured out of the bones of a dying world."
— Terence McKenna

And this is why it is is a difficult path, because the iconography pervades not only the old reality, but is also present in the new reality. Leave the gurus to their thoughts and concentrate on yourself.

[Maria Stade]

He is One of many messangers !

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

In the end we all are !

When the center of self has been found !

Some of the messengers are using drogs to find answers and what they get is just peak moments and not the real thing !

But we all have our own jurny and there is a message in us all.

Namaste

[CyRus]

This may be off topic but is this man saying similar to Nassim or not?
Opinions appreciated

Chris



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFhlPdZ15Cs&feature=player_embedded

Hmm, he definitely seems more honest than Haramein. I looked at his webpage and tried to find links to his writings (and hopefully equations, since he calls it the Physics of Consciousness) but the links were all broken.
The crux of the matter is, if you call what you do physics, you better have equations (and or experiments) to prove your point. Otherwise, the title of physics is misleading. If he for instance called it "The Scientific Philosophy of Consciousness" I would not object if he didn't provide a mathematical framework.

As I am unable to find anything more than this interview, I have nothing to base my evaluation on, and remain undecided. :P

[jorr lundstrom]

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

Agreed.

BTW Paul is exactly correct regarding the AIP conference proceedings. Anyone can submit a paper to a conference and talk about it. Peer review has nothing to do with it. Peer review is a generic term for a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. It usually is an extended process of submission and negotiation. He has not done this. This thread is a form of layman review and reflects what would happen during a peer review cycle.


Most members seem one day to be in total agreement that education is BS

Jorr dear friend, most members would agree that education systems as they exist today are BS. There is a difference.


"We have to create culture, don't watch TV, don't read magazines, don't even listen to NPR. Create your own roadshow. The nexus of space and time where you are now is the most immediate sector of your universe, and if you're worrying about Michael Jackson or Bill Clinton or (new age gurus), then you are disempowered, you're giving it all away to icons, icons which are maintained by an electronic media so that you want to dress like X or have lips like Y. This is ****-brained, this kind of thinking. That is all cultural diversion, and what is real is you and your friends and your associations, your highs, your orgasms, your hopes, your plans, your fears. And we are told 'no', we're unimportant, we're peripheral. 'Get a degree, get a job, get a this, get a that.' And then you're a player, you don't want to even play in that game. You want to reclaim your mind and get it out of the hands of the cultural engineers who want to turn you into a half-baked moron consuming all this trash that's being manufactured out of the bones of a dying world."
— Terence McKenna

Ok, get it. I think it means that the system is BS but the education is correct. And those

who has the correct education speaks the truth. Maybye exept if you work for NASA,

Big Pharma, the Health system, the Government, the Militaries, TV companies the

Oil idustries, Nuclear Powerplants and so on.........................................:playball:...........

[eaglespirit]

WOW!!!

"Growing" UP, UP, UP ...ALL in One Thread!!! Science and Spirituality ARE the SAME Energy...and WE ARE that Fruition!!!
The only "nonsense" is our own brainwashed NON-sense of higher rhythms that We ARE Now Sensing and taking "command" of!!!
Kudos Nassim...Kudos Avalon!

http://i27.tinypic.com/28ho0as.jpg



Command of the Eagle

When the warrior becomes fully aligned to the Dreamer they have the Command of the Eagle at their hand. Toltecs call the Creator of the Nagual (all that is), the Eagle. When a warrior has the Command of the Eagle at their hand they have the power of the Intent of all creation.

When we are fully aligned to the Dreamer, the Dreamer’s will and our will are one. We have free will but it is the will of the Dreamer. For those new to Toltec lore, the Dreamer is the entity that dreams our particular lifetime. We are the dreamed, dreamed by the Dreamer, our life is the dream.

We begin aligning to the Dreamer when we embark on the Mastery of Intent.

[Icecold]

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

Agreed.

BTW Paul is exactly correct regarding the AIP conference proceedings. Anyone can submit a paper to a conference and talk about it. Peer review has nothing to do with it. Peer review is a generic term for a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. It usually is an extended process of submission and negotiation. He has not done this. This thread is a form of layman review and reflects what would happen during a peer review cycle.


Most members seem one day to be in total agreement that education is BS

Jorr dear friend, most members would agree that education systems as they exist today are BS. There is a difference.


"We have to create culture, don't watch TV, don't read magazines, don't even listen to NPR. Create your own roadshow. The nexus of space and time where you are now is the most immediate sector of your universe, and if you're worrying about Michael Jackson or Bill Clinton or (new age gurus), then you are disempowered, you're giving it all away to icons, icons which are maintained by an electronic media so that you want to dress like X or have lips like Y. This is ****-brained, this kind of thinking. That is all cultural diversion, and what is real is you and your friends and your associations, your highs, your orgasms, your hopes, your plans, your fears. And we are told 'no', we're unimportant, we're peripheral. 'Get a degree, get a job, get a this, get a that.' And then you're a player, you don't want to even play in that game. You want to reclaim your mind and get it out of the hands of the cultural engineers who want to turn you into a half-baked moron consuming all this trash that's being manufactured out of the bones of a dying world."
— Terence McKenna

Ok, get it. I think it means that the system is BS but the education is correct. And those

who has the correct education speaks the truth. Maybye exept if you work for NASA,

Big Pharma, the Health system, the Government, the Militaries, TV companies the

Oil idustries, Nuclear Powerplants and so on.........................................:playball:...........

Well, that is not what I meant. :)

Sorry if you read it that way.

What it means is that gurus who chant an alternative mantra may also be in error. Truth does not always lay in opposition to lies. Mantra is mantra. Different language, does not mean truth, just different thoughts.

[ThePythonicCow]

This may be off topic but is this man saying similar to Nassim or not?
Opinions appreciated
I can't understand the audio very well (bad ears), but I found a brief summary of what seems to be the same interview at Other Spiritual Pieces: Energy is Everything and so Energy = God (http://abundanthope.net/pages/Other_Spiritual_Pieces_68/Energy-is-Everything-and-so-Energy-God_printer.shtml). See also his website, such as Science of the Supernatural (http://davidash.info/20090801/pages/004scienceofsupernatural.html).

David Ash is saying something quite different (from my perspective.)

He seems to be working as an honest, inspired, amateur physicist. He is not developing the detailed mathematical models which can be rigorously tested to many decimal places of accuracy (nor is he claiming to.) But he is elaborating an interesting model, as a blend between metaphor, science and the spiritual.

My initial reactions to David Ash are far more positive than to Nassim. It's not "hard" physics (with laboratory equipment and difficult mathematics.) But it does feel like honest, inspired, insight.

[ThePythonicCow]

Hmm, he definitely seems more honest than Haramein. I looked at his webpage and tried to find links to his writings (and hopefully equations, since he calls it the Physics of Consciousness) but the links were all broken
Not all the links are broken (on his http://davidash.info/20090801/pages/004scienceofsupernatural.html page.) The first one works, to the paper Article 1: The Vortex Key to Mass (pdf) (http://davidash.info/20090801/images/stories/2008/articles/Article1.pdf). It's thin - not physics as you would call it.

I agree with your appraisal of David Ash (as you can see from the post I made after your first reply to Chris, but before I had read your reply.)

[CyRus]

Hmm, he definitely seems more honest than Haramein. I looked at his webpage and tried to find links to his writings (and hopefully equations, since he calls it the Physics of Consciousness) but the links were all broken
Not all the links are broken (on his http://davidash.info/20090801/pages/004scienceofsupernatural.html page.) The first one works, to the paper Article 1: The Vortex Key to Mass (pdf) (http://davidash.info/20090801/images/stories/2008/articles/Article1.pdf). It's thin - not physics as you would call it.

I agree with your appraisal of David Ash (as you can see from the post I made after your first reply to Chris, but before I had read your reply.)
Thank you very much for this, funny how I missed that link.
Having read this, I have altered my opinion slightly. Comparing this with the Schwarzchild proton I would have to say this is more well written. It also references previous theorists, which Haramein virtually neglected.
He definitely seems more genuine than Haramein, that is for certain.

[eaglespirit]

What it means is that gurus who chant an alternative mantra may also be in error. Truth does not always lay in opposition to lies. Mantra is mantra. Different language, does not mean truth, just different thoughts.

Can't get away from this this morning...
Each One of Us ARE the Gurus...and it is ALL the Same!!!
Spirituality and Science ARE the Same Thing...SAME Vibration!
That is all WE have to learn, each in our own way...imho!!!
And ACT on this new(old) knowledge in every single thing We Do!
And UPGRADE This Life, Right Now!!!
May sound like "babble" to some because it sounds too simple...
3d brainwashing "babbles" Higher Energy WE Create
that are bringing Science and Spirituality into ONE Full Rhythm!!!

[jorr lundstrom]

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

Agreed.

BTW Paul is exactly correct regarding the AIP conference proceedings. Anyone can submit a paper to a conference and talk about it. Peer review has nothing to do with it. Peer review is a generic term for a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. It usually is an extended process of submission and negotiation. He has not done this. This thread is a form of layman review and reflects what would happen during a peer review cycle.


Most members seem one day to be in total agreement that education is BS

Jorr dear friend, most members would agree that education systems as they exist today are BS. There is a difference.


"We have to create culture, don't watch TV, don't read magazines, don't even listen to NPR. Create your own roadshow. The nexus of space and time where you are now is the most immediate sector of your universe, and if you're worrying about Michael Jackson or Bill Clinton or (new age gurus), then you are disempowered, you're giving it all away to icons, icons which are maintained by an electronic media so that you want to dress like X or have lips like Y. This is ****-brained, this kind of thinking. That is all cultural diversion, and what is real is you and your friends and your associations, your highs, your orgasms, your hopes, your plans, your fears. And we are told 'no', we're unimportant, we're peripheral. 'Get a degree, get a job, get a this, get a that.' And then you're a player, you don't want to even play in that game. You want to reclaim your mind and get it out of the hands of the cultural engineers who want to turn you into a half-baked moron consuming all this trash that's being manufactured out of the bones of a dying world."
— Terence McKenna

Ok, get it. I think it means that the system is BS but the education is correct. And those

who has the correct education speaks the truth. Maybye exept if you work for NASA,

Big Pharma, the Health system, the Government, the Militaries, TV companies the

Oil idustries, Nuclear Powerplants and so on.........................................:playball:...........

Well, that is not what I meant. :)

Sorry if you read it that way.

What it means is that gurus who chant an alternative mantra may also be in error. Truth does not always lay in opposition to lies. Mantra is mantra. Different language, does not mean truth, just different thoughts.

Ice dear. I know you didnt meant wot I wrote. Im just playing around a little.

Im convinced that we are on the same side of the desk. Im just a little tired

of the use of the word "TRUTH". Its used vividly, but nobody defines wot they

mean by it and never who´s truth they are speaking about.

If there is an unpersonal, objective "TRUTH" at all, which I doubt, I think its

gotta be defind in other ways than just "Everything the government denies".

As I consider myself to be free, I wonder wot "TRUTH" will set me free or if

there is anything like more free than free. :kiss:

[Icecold]

Ice dear. I know you didnt meant wot I wrote. Im just playing around a little.

Im convinced that we are on the same side of the desk. Im just a little tired

of the use of the word "TRUTH". Its used vividly, but nobody defines wot they

mean by it and never who´s truth they are speaking about.

If there is an unpersonal, objective "TRUTH" at all, which I doubt, I think its

gotta be defind in other ways than just "Everything the government denies".

As I consider myself to be free, I wonder wot "TRUTH" will set me free or if

there is anything like more free than free.

LOL. Agreed.

I say again.....

And this is why it is is a difficult path, because the iconography pervades not only the old reality, but is also present in the new reality. Leave the gurus to their thoughts and concentrate on yourself. :boink:

[Dale]

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

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

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

Not really as it wouldn't exist without us observing it.

K

Most certainly. The world of quantum physics describes a ghostly interaction between the observer and the observed. However, just as we observe the world around us, the bluebird perched on the window ledge is doing much the same. As are the earthworms buried in the ground, and the cells that make up their bodies. All strings of consciousness are perceiving this vast Universe of energy, however limited, or unlimited, their perspectives may be. I do not feel we are at a point in which we can understand the mechanisms as to how this Universe operates, though we may be developing an idea as to its functions.

[Icecold]

I do not feel we are at a point in which we can understand the mechanisms as to how this Universe operates

It is a difficult thing to convince the human ego that this is a true statement.

I used to use the analogy of a sheep or cow trying to learn quantum mechanics. It becomes a problem of capacity of thought.

It may be the case that a particularly intelligent sheep thinks it knows how the universe works and is utterly convinced that it is in truth.


Albert (named after Einstein)

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=6574&d=1301754327.

[jorr lundstrom]

Oh Ice, wot a nice sheep.;) A man was out walking in the eastern parts of Belgium.

He met a shepherd wit a lot of sheep. They talked for a while and then the man asked:

If I can guess how many sheep youve got, can I have one then. Ok, said the shepherd.

Youve got 256 the man said. Ok, thats right the shepherd said. Ok, can I take one then the man said.

And he put one animal around his shoulders. The shepherd said: I think you work at EU:s Department

of Agriculture in Brusssels. The man said: correct, how did you know. The shepherd said: Put the

dog down and I will try to explain to you.:luv:

Maybye the herd contained that particular intelligent sheep.:rapture:

[ulli]

Anyone who is determined enough to get past the massive disinfo on astrology
and spends just a little time to study the very simple maths behind it,
will see in no time (haha, funny word, TIME)
that the universe is holographic,
that the above and below fields or fractals are interconnected via vortexes,
that time is not linear.

Yet the illusion of linear time
has it's place, how else would people in 3D know when to connect or disconnect from each other...
equally the illusion of space ...necessary to distinguish between togetherness and seperateness.

The space-time universe serves as a sieve through which refined spiritual energies can be poured,
while the courser pebbles can get recycled. The old wheat/chaff analogy.

About Nassim: he is soo not my type that I wouldn't be able to sit through a single lecture.
But that is a non-objective judgement which is probably more telling about me than about him.

Visual presentations will always come under extra fire
as the added elements of personal style or gender preference can interfere with the audience's judgement
of the basic ideas that are being presented.
I was once a guest on a TV talk show, doing my best,
with TV cameras and lights on me I definitely tried harder,
defending astrology in the most rational way I could muster,
with all my sincerity.
Furthermore I explained how I had given up
a jetset lifestyle with a secure bank account
for something that was bringing me less than $500 a month.

Did that TV show make any difference?
All people could comment on afterwards was the outfit I was wearing and my looks. Nobody had listened except for the skeptics, hey, not even they, as their minds were made up long ago.
That's when I realized that I should have dumped my inner fashion designer the moment I dumped the profession.
I was given a tape by the producer but a couple of years later I discovered that my husband had copied a soccer match over it.
It's like it never happened...
there's a lesson there, somewhere....

But the mere fact that this thread is attracting so much debate is a major sign
that physicists as well as lay people are getting pulled towards the same vortex and soon all will be singing together
"Hey, we're not in Kansas anymore."

[Icecold]

Anyone who is determined enough to get past the massive disinfo on astrology
and spends just a little time to study the very simple maths behind it,
will see in no time (haha, funny word, TIME)
that the universe is holographic,
that the above and below fields or fractals are interconnected via vortexes,
that time is not linear.

Yet the illusion of linear time
has it's place, how else would people in 3D know when to connect or disconnect from each other...
equally the illusion of space ...necessary to distinguish between togetherness and seperateness.

The space-time universe serves as a sieve through which refined spiritual energies can be poured,
while the courser pebbles can get recycled. The old wheat/chaff analogy.

About Nassim: he is soo not my type that I wouldn't be able to sit through a single lecture.
But that is a non-objective judgement which is probably more telling about me than about him.

Visual presentations will always come under extra fire
as the added elements of personal style or gender preference can interfere with the audience's judgement
of the basic ideas that are being presented.
I was once a guest on a TV talk show, doing my best,
with TV cameras and lights on me I definitely tried harder,
defending astrology in the most rational way I could muster,
with all my sincerity.
Furthermore I explained how I had given up
a jetset lifestyle with a secure bank account
for something that was bringing me less than $500 a month.

Did that TV show make any difference?
All people could comment on afterwards was the outfit I was wearing and my looks. Nobody had listened except for the skeptics, hey, not even they, as their minds were made up long ago.
That's when I realized that I should have dumped my inner fashion designer the moment I dumped the profession.
I was given a tape by the producer but a couple of years later I discovered that my husband had copied a soccer match over it.
It's like it never happened...
there's a lesson there, somewhere....

But the mere fact that this thread is attracting so much debate is a major sign
that physicists as well as lay people are getting pulled towards the same vortex and soon all will be singing together
"Hey, we're not in Kansas anymore."


lmao

That's a better argument than Nassim's. :whip:

You get the sense from the members that it a truly terrifying, unthinkable concept to say that humans are not capable of understanding the universe. The ego is present even when one believes it isn't. :flame:

Humanity, as a whole believes above all else that it is the potentially omnipotent force of the universe (under source). To me, this is unbelievably egoistic.

The Cult of Star Trek lives on....

[K626]

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

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

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

Not really as it wouldn't exist without us observing it.

K

Most certainly. The world of quantum physics describes a ghostly interaction between the observer and the observed. However, just as we observe the world around us, the bluebird perched on the window ledge is doing much the same. As are the earthworms buried in the ground, and the cells that make up their bodies. All strings of consciousness are perceiving this vast Universe of energy, however limited, or unlimited, their perspectives may be. I do not feel we are at a point in which we can understand the mechanisms as to how this Universe operates, though we may be developing an idea as to its functions.

The bluebird is not self-aware or self-reflective or self-reflexive. It does not have the tools to be aware that it is observing itself when it observes the universe. And as for the earthworm, do you really want me to dig down? You're a good lad Dale and thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply. BTW we will never understand the workings or the paradigms of the universe, but that has not and will not stop us listening to its beautiful music.

Klabs

[Elixer]

If the Universe is fractal, we might be able to fathom it by understanding an atom, say.
If ascension is real, or conscioussness significantly evolves, then we might gain this understanding as well.
To me this is part of what we're doing here. I agree though, right now, we know nothing, except that we exist. The rest is belief and in the absense of knowledge, belief is all we have, I believe.

[shiva777]

just to answer the question about ash Deanes material on sacred Geometry for Elixer...if you take in to account(or at least entertain the idea)that the physics of our universal hologram
have been messed with for millions of years then you can more readily get your mind around how organisms have evolved here to reflect that distorted geometry.This is a big and important concept to consider as what we here deem to be "natural" may be far from it,It has become more and more clear that the moon is NOT a natural companion to earth and that the axis of the earth and the angle of rotation of some of the planets are out of whack as well,,,for example

...the golden mean and fibonacci are a distorted inorganic means of energetic exchange that results in vampirism and the savagery of the "natural kingdoms"...if we could connect to ETERNAL living light we could get our sustenance from the air,for example...we used to be 16 feet tall and have 12 fingers and toes but millions of years ago the physics of our hologram were messed with and here we are shorter,10 toed and much less connected to TRUE Unity and eternal universal physics

Many of Ash's students come from physics and maths backgrounds and they haven't been able to fault the very technical and mind-blowing material that comes through her...and many others who have tried to debunk her physics have not been able to and have even ripped them off to develop their own ideas and inventions

it's a VERY complicated issue,the platonic solids and merkaba's are discussed in great detail at this site...check out www.keylonticdictionary.org and you will get a better idea of what Ashayana is talking about regarding zero-point physics as opposed to vampiric physics

[Feren]

To be wrong or inaccurate does not mean to be a fraud. Al science, all knowledge is inaccurate and, in a certain way, wrong. It's only a system of human interpretations.
"Fraud" is moral judgement; "wrongness" in the sense of inacuracy is a scientific one.

[skippy]

Oh Ice, wot a nice sheep.;) A man was out walking in the eastern parts of Belgium.

He met a shepherd wit a lot of sheep. They talked for a while and then the man asked:

If I can guess how many sheep youve got, can I have one then. Ok, said the shepherd.

Youve got 256 the man said. Ok, thats right the shepherd said. Ok, can I take one then the man said.

And he put one animal around his shoulders. The shepherd said: I think you work at EU:s Department

of Agriculture in Brusssels. The man said: correct, how did you know. The shepherd said: Put the

dog down and I will try to explain to you.:luv:

Maybye the herd contained that particular intelligent sheep.:rapture:

Here another one:

An employee of the EU Department of Agriculture in Brusssels was invited by his collegues to shoot ducks in the forests of the eastern part of Belgium. After several hours, Bingo! A fat duck fell into a nearby field where a shephard was walking with a lot of sheep. When approaching the dead duck, the shepard said to the man:

"Listen, this is my field and therfore my duck. But, I would like to make the following deal with you. If you can guess how many sheep I'v got here, I will give you the duck for free. If your guess is wrong, I will kick you in your balls as hard I can".

"Ok", the man said after having counted the sheeps: "You've got 256!"; "No, thats wrong" the shepherd said, and he kicked the man as hard as he could. After 1 hour of suffering, the man decided to count again one for one the sheep and he said: "No, I guess you are wrong, I've counted 256 sheep, as I said". The shepard answered, "Yeah, I guess you were right, please keep the duck."

[Elixer]

Thanks for that Shiva.
Saying that our entire reality, including the natural world is corrupted, is one gigantic assumption to make though. From there you can go anywhere, but it would sort of make for a circular argument. Would it not? And even if it is backed up with evidence, there cannot be conclusive proof and it obviously flies in the face of Ockham's razor.

I'm not saying it's not plausible. In fact, I just listened to Kerry's interview with Keith Hunter. Quite amazing, though very complex. He has mathematically reconstructed the solar system and concludes that indeed there is something that just throws the numbers off slightly. He also refers to ancient times where this was apparently not the case. (Sounds like you may have heard this interview as well)

There is also the interesting alternative view that the Earth used to be much smaller and all the 'tectonic plates' were connected then (DW brings that up sometimes). And there are those guys with the Electric Universe theory (which I believe is very much in line with Dan Winter), who also suggest that at one time the solar system looked very different and that something catastrohic happened to change that.

And yes, I would agree that the moon could definitely be artificial. However, I was also reminded of 'the book of coincidences' which lists many of the improbable proportions present in our solar system, including relations with the moon. Though of course, if it is artificial, the constructors would probably have taken those proportions into consideration.

Anyway, I can see how from this basic assumption that this reality has been messed with, it would potentially follow that the DNA and the ratios in our bodies etc are corrupted.
But how does this corruption find its way into the basic geometry of the platonic solids?
If even these basic shapes are suffering from the same corruption, then everything in this realm and I mean everything, is off.
Then it follows that using the apparently corrupt yardstick of the phi ratio is still correct, for it does describe the reality as we see it today, as it were.

Lastly, Winter and many others I'm sure, also point out that the phi ratio is not just applicable to Earth or even just our solar system, but that it can be seen to apply throughout the observable universe.
If that is true, then that would mean that even our observations of the universe are somehow skewed, that our perception is unreliable, which really doesn't leave any solid ground at all, that we really don't know anything and in fact that everything we believe is based in falsehood.
But thank god we have Asha to come to our rescue, for she has exclusive access to the truth (:p).

What about the other question (relation azurite press and azureworld)?
I hope all this doesn't stray too far off topic...

[shiva777]

I gave you the link and it seems you have an open enough mind to consider a very different view of things..so if you are REALLY interested in taking a look at a very different theory about sacred geometry to most,I suggest you take a look...

Keith Hunters material confirms some of what Ash has said and Kerry is also very interested in Ash's work ,as it also puts together so many of the pieces proj camelot/avalon guest have provided

[ThePythonicCow]

"Fraud" is moral judgement;
Yes, "fraud" is a moral judgment. I am certain that Nassim is a fraud (though like the best of frauds, he is not consciously aware of this.) Learn what Plank density is (not Plank's constant, that's a quite different number) and then try to read Nassim's paper.

I posted a link earlier in this thread to a post I made in January debunking Nassim. Chase that down for an explanation of why I say this. His paper and his talk (what I could stand to listen of it) are full of misleading nonsense.

Nassim is a con-artist, a snake-oil salesman, a fraud. His "science" is a crock. I say this not because he disagrees with current standard physics models - that would actually be a good thing in my view. Thanks to Greybeard's question about David Ash earlier in this thread (Thanks, Chris!), we had a good example of the difference between an honest amateur scientist's approach to very non-standard physics, and a con-artists approach.

As I have readily admitted before, I am not competent to judge Nassim from a spiritual point of view. But based on his science, I would not trust Nassim with the soul of the dead salamander my cat brought me as a gift last year.

[CyRus]

While we are on the subject of spiritual scientists:
Take a look at this link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fD7Pu40qeI&feature=player_embedded#at=146

[Menkaure]

I think it's too soon to judge Nassim.
history shows that it could be hundreds of years for his 'wild ideas' are proven to be true or not. Just don't let the church get a hold of him or he will be burned at the stake before he subverts their power in some imagined way.

[CyRus]

I think it's too soon to judge Nassim.
history shows that it could be hundreds of years for his 'wild ideas' are proven to be true or not. Just don't let the church get a hold of him or he will be burned at the stake before he subverts their power in some imagined way.
No it's not. You see, Nassim's ideas are not wild they are wrong! He has no grasp of mathematics or physics whatsoever, and can thereby not call himself a physicist. The man claims to be on the cutting edge of physics for God's sake, yet doesn't have a clue what he is talking about!
He is a fraud because he is portraying himself as a world-class physicist, which he is not (and this has nothing to do with education by the way, there are many autodidacts out there who are brilliant!) and therefore is either deliberately misleading his audience or he is himself deluded.

The sole argument I hear in defence of Haramein goes along the lines of... "Well I am no physicist but what he says makes sense.". How can you judge what makes sense if you know nothing on the subject the man is talking about?
Nassim is no intellectual either, any bloke down at your local could spout the same crock as Haramein after a couple of pints and it might be very stimulating conversation indeed. But if he is no physicist he has no basis to test his theories, and therefore is in the exact same situation as every other would be metaphysician. :P

[Connecting with Sauce]

I've met Dan Winters a few times at a stars and Stones event and I've watched the Nassim stuff a few times too...

I actually have a physics degree and an acoustics masters and I don't think my brain is a slouch... My issue is these guys don't explain it in a way I can understand it, so what hope do most people without upto date physics degrees who also have LHS/RHS balanced brains have of understanding it?

I think the problem these guys have is explaining it so the lay person understands it fully, especially Dan Winters, when they get to this level of 'knowledge' these 'geniuses' struggle to slow there brains down to 'normal' mode...

[Chicodoodoo]

I think it's too soon to judge Nassim.
history shows that it could be hundreds of years for his 'wild ideas' are proven to be true or not. Just don't let the church get a hold of him or he will be burned at the stake before he subverts their power in some imagined way.
No it's not. You see, Nassim's ideas are not wild they are wrong! He has no grasp of mathematics or physics whatsoever, and can thereby not call himself a physicist. The man claims to be on the cutting edge of physics for God's sake, yet doesn't have a clue what he is talking about!

I'm not buying your assessment, CyRus. I'm all about questioning everything, but along with that I dismiss nothing without convincing evidence, and even then I have to periodically question that evidence.

I'm not a physicist by trade, but physics was my minor in college. When I listen to Nassim, I'm hearing physics. Physics is a description for how the world works. You seem to have the idea that physics has to have a certain level of mathematical complexity to be seriously considered, but that is not always true. The fractal nature of the world has been observed, but it has never been accounted for by traditional physics. Nassim is going down that road where few, if any, have gone before. In the final analysis, our understanding of physics is only as advanced as the sophistication of our minds. From my viewpoint, our minds aren't very sophisticated. Nassim is pushing the envelope and possibly expanding our minds by doing so. To call him wrong is very intolerant and possibly short-sighted.

[ThePythonicCow]

I'm not a physicist by trade, but physics was my minor in college. When I listen to Nassim, I'm hearing physics. Physics is a description for how the world works. You seem to have the idea that physics has to have a certain level of mathematical complexity to be seriously considered, but that is not always true
I do not dismiss Nassim for lack of mathematical complexity.

Notice for example that both CyRus and myself found David Ash to be far more interesting, and Ash probably uses less mathematical jargon than Nassim.

Please read my January post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?11154-Charles-comments-about-a-False-Flag-ET-threat-event-important-new-information&p=100775&viewfull=1#post100775) debunking Nassim. Notice that he is suggesting that the entire mass of 100 billion galaxies (the estimated size of the entire known Universe) is crammed into each and every atomic nucleus of each atom in the Universe.

This is absolutely, totally, mind-bogglingly absurd.

Sure, you "hear" physics. That is because he is using the words of Physics that sound familiar to a wider audience to make it sound like he is saying something substantial. For example, many of us have heard of Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10^-34 m^2 kg / s. Notice the exponent of (-34), meaning this is a very small quantity. But Nassim uses (without clarifying the distinction) another constant that is less well known to a wider audience, but "sounds" familiar, namely the Planck density, which is typically given as rho = 5.16 * 10^93 gm/cm^3. Notice the exponent on that one of (+93), meaning this is a really, really big number. It is what the density of the Universe would be, if crammed into a space the size of a single atomic nucleus. One of these numbers makes perfectly good sense showing up in sub-atomic analysis; the other does not, outside of the earliest fractions of a second after the Big Bang.

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

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

[Tenzin]

"The Earth was round." This WAS absolutely absurd then.

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

[Pilgrim]

There are plenty other scientists trying to merge the spiritual and the scientific, but why cling to frauds? It is not a process of it "rings true in science".

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


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

It makes sense for me.


No government conspiracy or body can alter that fact.

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


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

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

Thanx for interesting thread:-) Cheers,P.

[Pilgrim]

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

I resonate with that one very much....;)

P.

[CyRus]

"The Earth was round." This WAS absolutely absurd then.

Anyway, nothing has been officially proven right or wrong at the moment about Nassim's theories. So let's see how it goes.
I believe both Paul and myself have provided convincing evidence that should wholeheartedly disprove Haramein. If you disagree with this and have a reasonable counter-argument I would really appreciate hearing it. :)

[CyRus]

There are plenty other scientists trying to merge the spiritual and the scientific, but why cling to frauds? It is not a process of it "rings true in science".

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


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

It makes sense for me.


No government conspiracy or body can alter that fact.

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


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

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

Thanx for interesting thread:-) Cheers,P.

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

[Chicodoodoo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ThePythonicCow]

If you take what we currently believe about physics as gospel, new discoveries or new perspectives can easily appear absurd. Recent physics itself is absurd.
Are you saying that since some things that seem absurd in some way to some people turn out to be right, therefore none of us should dismiss anything that seems absurd to us?

That's an absurd argument ;).

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

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

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

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

[CyRus]

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

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

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

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

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

I won’t dismiss the possibility that Nassim might turn out to be a charlatan, but I’m seeing more evidence against it than for it. You see the opposite. We may both be wrong.
Isaac Newton's theories are almost 350 years old now, and they are still very accurate when utilized in our "normal" three-dimensional environment. They are not considered absurd by any means, and while recent physics have expanded and extrapolated those theories to model more extreme conditions, they are still accurate. I agree with you that we undoubtedly lack some fundamental understanding of the universe, but the physical laws that are in place today are probably correct, they just need expanding.

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

[greybeard]

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

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

Is any of this confirmed?
please excuse my ignorance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNgUdg2NAmc&feature=player_embedded


Thats a link to the David Sereda interview

ch

[ThePythonicCow]

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

Is any of this confirmed?

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

[An Cailleach]

There are plenty other scientists trying to merge the spiritual and the scientific, but why cling to frauds? It is not a process of it "rings true in science".

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

This man is one of 'em! :cool:

KdvxnajpZ3o
lZb2GthmpSk
q2MrtZxH2Q0

[Chicodoodoo]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[ThePythonicCow]

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

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

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

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

[greybeard]

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

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

Regards Chris

[Elixer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jayke]

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

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

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

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

[CyRus]

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

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

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

The nature of physics, as a worthwhile way of thinking and understanding the physical universe, grounded in mathematics and logic, independent of any particular model (Newtonian, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, whatever) is not a way of thinking that many people have a strong instinct for. Discerning whether Nassim has value is a difficult task, if one does not have a strong sense of what is "good" physics.
Very intriguing point indeed! I had not thought of it that way, however, I am aware I am young and naive. :P

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

[CyRus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earlier, I called 'disinformation'. This was not regarding the science, which I think was someone's conclusion (though I may have misunderstood). I was referring to the methods used to bring certain points across, by Bob...and others.
Sorry, but I find this mildly insulting. What gives you the right to say I am misunderstood when you have no idea of what this man is speaking about? He is a talented speaker, he has charm and I can understand how he can "gain a following", but you must understand that this isn't enough.
His theories are nonsense! You say that the fact that the mass of protons being a 'ridiculously' high number suggests it comes from a different paradigm, but how can you account for the fact that when you step on the scale, it doesn't show you to be the same weight as Mount Everest?
This should be enough to debunk this particular point entirely...

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

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

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

[Elixer]

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

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

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

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

Please take this post as seriously as you intended yours.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

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

[StateOfTheHeart]

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

This is absolutely, totally, mind-bogglingly absurd.

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

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

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


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

------


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

One might debate that. Do you dig the work of Michio Kaku? Science and Music (http://bigthink.com/ideas/26835) (I know I'm taking your words slightly out of context there, but still relevant, IMO)

------

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

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

------

...And just to annoy ya...


~*~
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/7894/einstein.png

~*~

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

[Chicodoodoo]

We have trillions upon trillions of protons within our body, so how come we do not collapse space-time itself?

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

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

[ThePythonicCow]

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

This is absolutely, totally, mind-bogglingly absurd.

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

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

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

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

[truthseekerdan]

The science that we know today is limited by the very fact that is viewed with a very limited 'tool' in understanding of consciousness, i.e. the human mind. We are living within the present moment of a single consciousness that is the living universe. However immense the universe may appear to us, it can only exist as we perceive it, even if this is beyond our current understanding of space-time and infinity. Better still, the larger we perceive the universe, the deeper and more fulfilled our consciousness will become because the mind is the full complement of the conscious whole through understanding its complexity and expanding relationships. From this point of view, consciousness actually creates what we call science.

JMHO

[CyRus]

The science that we know today is limited by the very fact that is viewed with a very limited 'tool' in understanding of consciousness, i.e. the human mind. We are living within the present moment of a single consciousness that is the living universe. However immense the universe may appear to us, it can only exist as we perceive it, even if this is beyond our current understanding of space-time and infinity. Better still, the larger we perceive the universe, the deeper and more fulfilled our consciousness will become because the mind is the full complement of the conscious whole through understanding its complexity and expanding relationships. From this point of view, consciousness actually creates what we call science.

JMHO
I agree entirely. :)

[Agape]

On both sides of the lost-in-space sail...

one of the things you should not forget is ..that the foundation of all science is mind channelled, abstract inspiration, divine blessing ..
You may have been collecting 'evidence' for thousands of years yet, it may have served nothing ..if the ability to recollect the higher patterns of our mind was not preserved and awakened.

I don't speak about channeling I speak about science and how the equation arrives in your mind. You may say it being a simple work of logic.
But we both know it isn't ..there is an infinite in our mind, of indefinite complicay level that needs to be expressed and translated ..


There are countless visions of future that is yet to come because what else is reality than countless visions ..



Don't destroy the subtle intelligence that is being formed on this planet, please...you've done that many times in your history usually to your harm ..



:yo:

[Agape]

It's all the rings belong together, right place and right time..the theory of systems , greater systems absorbes the lesser ones recyclating itself and so forth.

:sleep:

[zenith]

so how come we do not collapse space-time itself?
Because we choose not to.
Choose otherwise and see what happens. ;)

[cloud9]

I have followed Haramein's work for a few years now but I'm not a physicist so I won't go there.

What I see extremely valuable in his work is his great capacity of observation and logical thinking. He's not a mathematician or physicist which I think are points to his advantage because he's able to see the world in a different manner, a new one, let's say with fresh eyes.

Another point to this advantage is that he is able to connect the dots in a way that no other physicists or mathematicians do, usually they are very rational thinkers and they don't use the knowledge of other disciplines whereas Haramein is extremely aware of the unity of all things in the universe.

In my opinion, even if his math is proven wrong, he's a genius, a human being who truly thinks out of the box and those are rare in our world. He knows that the spiritual world and the material world are interconnected and he has found his own way to see it and explain it. Even if his formulas are wrong, what it's intriguing is that what he explains others have seen in mystical experiences, so despite the mathematics I'd say his work will be recognized sooner than later, perhaps it's not so perfect but he's definitely in the right track.

[Jayke]

If you believe what they say in quantum mechanics, that the observer creates the observed, I'd be curious to know what would happen if every lay person of the world, the majority of the collective consciousness embraced the simplicity of Nassims work. Would the new observations change the very laws of physics themselves? What would happen to the small subset of physicists who are clinging on to an old system? Would they still have any relevance in this new world? Would they allow themselves to become obsolete? or would they adapt and start using their impressive faculties of mind to work within the new established system set out by the masses?

I believe Nassim raises some serious questions about the entire validity of the established system of physics we use at the moment, most children and lay people who come across Nassims work instantly realise that modern physics is fundamentally flawed in some way...what happens when those young children grow up, become physicists themselves and start to work on theories and maths that prove what Nassim was saying to be true, it may take several generations, it could happen in several years...but his theories will be proved with some fancy mathematics eventually, mainly because the human mind can find truth in anything, it can create complex solutions to any problem, even if they turn out to be also wrong further down the line.

[Chicodoodoo]

The thread title was inspired by this blog:
http://azureworld.blogspot.com
Where a physics teacher objectively points out the errors and fraudulent claims made by Haramein.

This man is very fair and makes an excellent case and in my eyes Haramein is conclusively debunked. I think it vital that anyone who are massive fans of Haramein at least take a look, and perhaps learn some physics in the process. (Very informative!)

I would like to argue that this man, Bob Athon, is not fair, does not make an excellent case, and does not conclusively debunk Nassim Haramein.

For the moment, I want to focus on just one aspect of Bob’s argument. He claims that Nassim’s application of Newton’s third law of motion to the expansion of the universe is completely irrelevant because it is being applied to the volume of space. Bob paints Nassim as “silly” for doing this and subtly ridicules him with great gusto in his derogatory dismissal.

What’s wrong with this picture?

For starters, an expanding universe involves lots of mass in motion, like about a billion galaxies worth of mass. Some force must have acted on all that mass to cause this movement. If we are to trust Newton’s third law, there must have been an equal and opposite force involved. Where are the effects of that opposite force?

It’s true that I am not a professional physicist, but Bob Athon evidently does present himself as a physics teacher. That Bob would choose to see only expanding volume and not see moving mass seems deceptive and very un-physics-like to me.

For reference, here is Bob’s argument below.

==========

Here's one. It's from his 8-hour presentation at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library in 2003. It's a long time ago, but these are the most popular videos of Haramein on the internet.

Skip to 3:00 and he's quoting Newton's 3rd law of motion (which he refers to as "first law of physics") – every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Here's a good place to learn about it (perfect if you're under the age of ten).

Of course not everybody knows or cares about Newton's laws of motion – but remember this man claims to be a world-leading physicist. (Indeed, in this clip he gloats about how his "first law of physics" insight stopped all the other physicists in the room in their tracks... I can't help feeling that if they had "blank look on their faces" it might not have been for the reason he's suggesting.)

This law explicitly only applies to forces on a pair of interacting objects. If I kick a brick, the brick exerts a force back on my foot and it hurts. If I shoot a bullet from a gun (not that I ever have or would), there's a recoil. If I catch a baseball, hand applies slowing force to ball, ball applies hitting force to hand. That kind of thing.

Instead of this, he uses it for the volume of space in the Universe, which is about as far from Newton's 3rd law as it's possible to get. There are many, many reasons why this is silly.

Why would something need to contract anyway? If space itself expands, then there just is more space. Why would anything need to contract to make room for it? [3]

Seven years later, he's still milking the same story, and still misusing the same piece of 8th grade physics. [Sorry – that video seems to have been removed since I provided this link]

The point is that he's using this law despite it being completely irrelevant. He uses it to 'prove' that "obviously something is contracting". This becomes a big theme in many of his other ideas. There's nothing 'obvious' about it – unless your version of obvious is feeling like "yeah, looks obvious to me, and you look like you're convinced so I'll go with it."

It's terrible misinformation. I think people deserve better than this.

[ThresholdRising]

I seen Harameins video "crossing the event horizon. In it he clearly shows how the tetrahedran inside a sphere relates observably to solar spots on the sun, volcanic activity and other activities on earth as well as a that giant storm on jupiter.
I don't know if Haramein is 100% correct, but he definitely shows how these geometry play a role in the structure and fractral nature of the universe.

[jupiter]

If you consider the fact that Nassim Haramein heads his own research organization and collaborates with a good many scientists and physicists alike around the world from a great many fields of interest, he is either the best con man ever or all those classically trained people must be a sandwich short of a picnic.
It is my observation that Haramein`s most ardent detractors all have a vested interest.
If you have been working all your life in a certain field and require grants to keep going and then some upstart comes along to say that your wrong which will make your life`s work irreverlent let alone jeopardize your source of income ,how do you think they are going to react.
I`m not sure if CyRus has a vested interest ,but the following statements he makes is simply not true (The problem with Haramein is that he cannot be called a physicist, because his "equations" defy the laws of physics profusely. (As stated,He is not a prominent mathematician) Therefore, I find him to be a fraud, as he is misleading the public to think he is a maverick physicist...which is incorrect.
At best he is a New Age philosopher, but a physicist...No. =P )
Nassim Haramein`s talk at the National Center For Atmospheric Research Boulder,Colorado in June 29 2009 is very imformative he gives a 20 min preamble and then goes through all the maths from start to finish concerning his black hole white hole theory, I asure you there is no weird stuff at all and the process is sound,at the end the camera pans the audience and you are certainly able to tell the physicists, they`re the ones that have the TomTits , red face and the look of ,why didn`t I think of that
Now we come to the great Bob Athon,the rebuttal sounds impressive, with a flowery writing style but when you have a close look most of it is a personal attack with not much substance ,and when you think about it someone that is not prepared to put their name to a piece of work like that has a definite lack if integrity(and a vested interest I would say)
I would like to wish every one a wonderful 2012:thumb:
Kind regards James