Nassim Haramein

[onawah]

Nassim is going to be one of the presenters at the Awake and Aware Conference coming up soon and I thought it would be appropriate to post a couple of his talks here again.
I am a big fan, and if you are not familiar with him, I'd say you are in for a treat...
He's funny, he's brilliant, he's original, and he can explain physics and math in a way that almost anyone can understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jml0RmixLIo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jml0RmixLIo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y5bXdx5UrE&feature=player_embedded#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y5bXdx5UrE&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN3mnZK-l_4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN3mnZK-l_4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE0pvkQ9Bmo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE0pvkQ9Bmo&feature=related

[vibrations]

Thank You Onawah. It is a pleasure to see his brilliant exposure of the new physics again and again.

[cloud9]

I'm a huge fan.

[CyRus]

Again, I feel compelled to comment:
I have spoken previously about Haramein. (See my thread: Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?) This man is not a physicist. He is clearly delusional, and while he has many theories which, for lack of a better word, sound intriguing, it is not physics at all. I can understand that within this community, there are very few people with the scientific fortitude to distinguish BS from good science. This is disturbing, as it seriously harms the credibility of good researchers.

Haramein is nothing but a skilled speaker, not a physicist. Anyone with at least a modest physics background (high-school) can spot the blatant flaws with Haramein's theories.

[onawah]

We are all welcome to our opinions here, and even scientific theory is a matter of opinion, to a degree.
Nassim has received accolades from other physicists, and one of his papers has won an award.
I don't think one has to be a physicist to understand common sense.

Following is a description from a site called "Pure Energy Systems at:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Nassim_Haramein%27s_Resonance_Project_Foundation

"He has spent most of his life researching the fundamental geometry of hyperspace, studying a variety of fields from theoretical physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, biology and chemistry to anthropology and ancient civilizations. He developed a new unification theory, known as the Haramein-Rauscher metric (a new solution to Einstein's Field Equations that incorporates torque and Coriolis effects) and his most recent paper The Schwarzschild Proton, lays down the foundation of what could be a fundamental change in our current understandings of physics and consciousness. This groundbreaking theory has now been delivered to the scientific community through peer-reviewed papers and presentations at international physics conferences. Further, The Schwarzschild Proton paper has recently received the prestigious "Best Paper Award" in the field of physics, quantum mechanics, relativity, field theory, and gravitation at the University of Liège, Belgium during the 9th International Conference CASYS'09.

In the past 20 years, Mr. Haramein has directed research teams of physicists, electrical engineers, mathematicians and other scientists. He has founded a non-profit organization, the Resonance Project Foundation, where, as the Director of Research, he continues exploring unification principles and their implications in our world today. The foundation is actively developing a research park on the island of Hawaii where science, sustainability, and green technology come together. "

Here is a list of some of his papers:
" The Schwarzschild Proton, by Nassim Haramein
Spinors, Twistors, Quaternions, and the “Spacetime” Torus Topology, by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.
Scale Unification – A Universal Scaling Law For Organized Matter (PDF), by Nassim Haramein, Michael Hyson, and E.A. Rauscher.
Collective Coherent Oscillation Plasma Modes In Surrounding Media of Black Holes and Vacuum Structure – Quantum Processes with Considerations of Spacetime Torque and Coriolis Forces (PDF), by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.
“The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein’s Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory”, by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher."


I like these comments from one blogger at:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1563&start=0

"Post by Mystery » Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:47 pm
Before something becomes mainstream, it is known for a long time by a few people long before that. The founder of Quantum Physics, it took about what... 50 years before what he said became mainstream? Copernicus died before people accepted that the Earth wasn't flat. Galileo was jailed for saying that. All these new discoveries were known but controverted long before they were globally accepted.

When it comes to technologies related to the vacuum making 96% of the Universe, people have known for thousands and thousands of years that we were all connected. That's nothing new. You don't need to understand it from a physics point of view to achieve miracles or heal cancers. I know one guy (Daniel Pomerleau) who generates electricity from nothing and he doesn't need anything to do it. I heard of a few people who could levitate but I'm still skeptic about that one since I never saw anything close to it myself yet. If someone can do it doesn't mean it can be reproduced by scientists.

Technologies of the vacuum are technologies of consciousness. You can access these new doors from your mind without needing to understand it. In fact, analyzing it on a mental level will create mental noise that will prevent you from accessing those planes. You must silence your rational mind and bridge the gap between the conscious and non-conscious minds. All Shamans and healers have done that for thousands of years.

It terms of validating these theories, it is easy for people who are clairvoyant (who can see energies), clairaudient (who can hear energies), clairfeeling (who can feel energies) or clairknowing (who simply know what is). People like me and many others can see emotions and fears in other people and the way energies are connected between people through time and space. When you see it with your mind's eye, it's just a matter of validating whether the theory you hear matches what you see. If someone told you gravity was making apples fly up and you saw the apples falling on the ground, you would know it isn't right because you can see it. There are lots of people who see energies but not everybody openly talks about it.

What is very new is that we're finally bridging the gap between spirituality and science which have been two totally separate sciences for a very long time.
I believe in the warrior in whom the old ways joined the new."

I think Nassim is a visionary, which puts him in a unique category, and beyond that, he is a concerned, compassionate, loving soul. That puts him very far ahead of the game in a big way; his biggest problem is probably that those who are not visionaries are going to take a long time catching up to him.
The intellect is just a tool, but those who can join intellect with the vastness of spiritual understanding have the ability to change the world for the good, and IMHO, our world needs more like him.

Apparently Kerry and Bill think he has something good to offer too too, or he would not be one of the presenters at the Awake and Aware Conference.

Personally, I can't wait to hear what Bob Dean, David Wilcock and Graham Hancock have to say about him. I'm pretty sure it's going to be very positive and interesting.



Again, I feel compelled to comment:
I have spoken previously about Haramein. (See my thread: Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?) This man is not a physicist. He is clearly delusional, and while he has many theories which, for lack of a better word, sound intriguing, it is not physics at all. I can understand that within this community, there are very few people with the scientific fortitude to distinguish BS from good science. This is disturbing, as it seriously harms the credibility of good researchers.

Haramein is nothing but a skilled speaker, not a physicist. Anyone with at least a modest physics background (high-school) can spot the blatant flaws with Haramein's theories.

[norman]

If it's not Physics, maybe Physics is wrong.

I don't agree with all his ideas but I sure do agree with the way he thinks.

[soulseeker]

I'm one of those with a "modest physics background (high-school)". But common sense also goes a long way as well.

What Nassim says about his understanding of physics makes sense . He explains it very well and doesn't need all the jargon to explain it.

He explains that current physics has gaping holes in it , he tries to explain it and give his version of a unified field theory.

His theory might sound like complete BS to you , but he sure makes very good sense of it.

Have a nice day

[araucaria]

Maybe an exposition and discussion of these 'blatant flaws' is called for... It is definitely not enough simply to state that a schoolboy can spot them. Schoolboys are notorious for their occasional incomplete understanding

[CyRus]

Maybe an exposition and discussion of these 'blatant flaws' is called for... It is definitely not enough simply to state that a schoolboy can spot them. Schoolboys are notorious for their occasional incomplete understanding

Fair enough, how about the obvious fact that the mass of a Supermassive Black Hole is estimated to be about 10^5-10^9 Msun:
Haramein's 'theory' is built upon the fact that the nucleus of every atom is a black hole. If this was the case each one of us would weigh more than about 10^20 Mount Everests.. (Does that make sense?) In addition to this, has anyone of you read Nassim's paper? It looks to me as if he has taken some random formulas from Wikipedia, tweaked them a little, and written his own personal interpretation in between. It is not a physics paper! I urge you to skim through his, and then read a PhD level physics paper and spot the difference..

His 'esteemed' paper is far from being peer-reviewed...in fact, that is another thing that really grates on my grain:
Haramein consistently boasts that his paper one a best paper award at some conference, the fact he fails to mention however, is that award is approximately as prestigious as my homework. The conference in question is on Control Systems, not physics. In other words, the participants at the conference do not have the qualifications to vote this paper the best, as they do not know physics! It probably just sounded good to them, as it does to you!

Yet again, physics is not subjective! The majority of modern physics we understand completely, however, the question is if there perhaps is another fundamental force that can account for consciousness or not. (I believe consciousness is a fundamental component of nature) What Haramein is doing is incorrectly reinterpreting modern physics, an act that is redundant! We understand it, and yet he incorrectly tries to reinterpret this (incorrectly!).

Haramein is clearly someone, (puts my Freudian cap on) who has lacked a father figure in his life, and has been coddled by his mother. She inflated his ego by appealing to his intelligence (he probably has a slightly over average IQ), and he took this at face value. After having grappled with simple physics problems, he probably started to add his own flawed metaphysical reasoning behind this and started to develop his own theories. The problem is, however, that his maths is appalling (a fact he admits to) and therefore he fails to see the fatal errors of his own theories. He has these wonderful ideas, but cannot see that they are wrong due to his lack of education...

He is a fool, and a somewhat tragic individual. However, I know many of you will shrug this off to closed-mindedness and willful ignorance. (How dare he insult my hero? He must be a closed minded pseudoskeptic..."#¤!¤)

I know many scientific theories were first deemed ridiculous and then embraced as fact. However, these theories were scientifically sound to begin with, but the paradigm was faulty. In this case, the theories are not scientifically sound!

[Tenzin]

I read the blog. I am impressed by the amount of effort that went into discrediting him by some individuals, to a point it seems to me it is coming from a hurt ego. As long as anyone raises argument with reference to Nassim's mainstream qualification, he gravely compromises his own credibility. It may work on sheeple, but not us here.

If anyone is so confident and eager to prove him a fraud, please, present the arguments directly to Nassim himself and let us hear his response in public. That's the only way people can tell when majority of the people know nuts about those equations and theories.

[CyRus]

I read the blog. I am impressed by the amount of effort that went into discrediting him by some individuals, to a point it seems to me it is coming from a hurt ego. As long as anyone raises argument with reference to Nassim's mainstream qualification, he gravely compromises his own credibility. It may work on sheeple, but not us here.

If anyone is so confident and eager to prove him a fraud, please, present the arguments directly to Nassim himself and let us hear his response in public. That's the only way people can tell when majority of the people know nuts about those equations and theories.
You people are so arrogant it comes across offensive! Sheeple indeed.. To be honest I am starting to think that the majority of the intelligence in this forum left in the great exodus.

A hurt ego? I see a man who is trying his hardest to convey good science and mathematic rigour into pointing out Haramein's errors, and I see Haramein's supporters as the ones with a hurt ego. Whilst Bob-athon's arguments are logical and sound, Haramein's fanatical fans are using all sorts of condescending names and informal arguments to support their cause. (Pseudoskeptic, closed-minded..etc)

Also, there was an exchange of letters between Bob-athon and Haramein, and Haramein came across appallingly. He seemed anxious and frightened, and he obviously did not have nearly as much scientific/mathematical knowledge as Bob-athon. (A school teacher I might add, not a physicist on par with Einstein)

I implore you all to read the blog, and make up your mind. I understand that many of you will not bother, as you would rather remain ignorant and think that anyone criticizing Haramein is a pseudo-skeptic, sheeple etc. If you are so eager to believe Haramein's nonsense that you fail to use critical thinking, and through all logic and common-sense out the window, then good riddance. If you do not have the intellectual curiosity to look at both sides of every issue, then you are a fool and deserve to throw away your money on Haramein's drivel...

[Tenzin]

I am suggesting that you present it better to make your point and my apologies that it appears harsh. Whenever people start hurling insults and accusations first to make a point, I take what comes after that with a grain of salt.

[CyRus]

I am suggesting that you present it better to make your point and my apologies that it appears harsh. Whenever people start hurling insults and accusations first to make a point, I take what comes after that with a grain of salt.
Right back at ya mate. "It may work on sheeple, but not us here." <----- How can this not be taken as an insult? So this is how it works is it:
You subtly insult me by calling me a sheep, I react, and call you out on your BS, and then I get accused of hurling insults? Brilliant. At least your critical faculties are in order then...

Otherwise as I said, if you want evidence that Nassim Haramein is a fool (if it isn't obvious already!) read this blog:
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/nassims-response-to-bobathon.html

[Tenzin]

Wow... Please, I'd like to know that you are right with your input, as I have clearly announced my lack of better intelligence when I say most people know nuts about those mathematics. We are all looking for answers. I look forward to you or perhaps a representation to make a stand out and confront Nassim with those arguments. That's the main point of my response so far.

[CyRus]

For examples, consult Bob-athon's blog. He explains it far better than I ever could. More specifically, here is an outline of some of his errors:

http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/nassim-haramein-fraud-or-sage-part-2.html (It is only 1 page or so, and interesting reading)

Also, for the scientific errors Haramein makes:
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html#s2

[onawah]

If you and Bob-athon are right, Cyrus, time will surely tell.

[bitworm]

I read the blog. I am impressed by the amount of effort that went into discrediting him by some individuals, to a point it seems to me it is coming from a hurt ego. As long as anyone raises argument with reference to Nassim's mainstream qualification, he gravely compromises his own credibility. It may work on sheeple, but not us here.

If anyone is so confident and eager to prove him a fraud, please, present the arguments directly to Nassim himself and let us hear his response in public. That's the only way people can tell when majority of the people know nuts about those equations and theories.
You people are so arrogant it comes across offensive! Sheeple indeed.. To be honest I am starting to think that the majority of the intelligence in this forum left in the great exodus.

A hurt ego? I see a man who is trying his hardest to convey good science and mathematic rigour into pointing out Haramein's errors, and I see Haramein's supporters as the ones with a hurt ego. Whilst Bob-athon's arguments are logical and sound, Haramein's fanatical fans are using all sorts of condescending names and informal arguments to support their cause. (Pseudoskeptic, closed-minded..etc)

Also, there was an exchange of letters between Bob-athon and Haramein, and Haramein came across appallingly. He seemed anxious and frightened, and he obviously did not have nearly as much scientific/mathematical knowledge as Bob-athon. (A school teacher I might add, not a physicist on par with Einstein)

I implore you all to read the blog, and make up your mind. I understand that many of you will not bother, as you would rather remain ignorant and think that anyone criticizing Haramein is a pseudo-skeptic, sheeple etc. If you are so eager to believe Haramein's nonsense that you fail to use critical thinking, and through all logic and common-sense out the window, then good riddance. If you do not have the intellectual curiosity to look at both sides of every issue, then you are a fool and deserve to throw away your money on Haramein's drivel...

There was a bit of an exchange took place between Bob-a-thon and Haramein, legitimate issues were raised and Haramein's defense is that there is a conspiracy among physicists to suppress his work. And nothing about the issues raised was directly addressed.


Here's some more sheeples discussing the flaws in his papers:
http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1251881447/all

[CyRus]

I read the blog. I am impressed by the amount of effort that went into discrediting him by some individuals, to a point it seems to me it is coming from a hurt ego. As long as anyone raises argument with reference to Nassim's mainstream qualification, he gravely compromises his own credibility. It may work on sheeple, but not us here.

If anyone is so confident and eager to prove him a fraud, please, present the arguments directly to Nassim himself and let us hear his response in public. That's the only way people can tell when majority of the people know nuts about those equations and theories.
You people are so arrogant it comes across offensive! Sheeple indeed.. To be honest I am starting to think that the majority of the intelligence in this forum left in the great exodus.

A hurt ego? I see a man who is trying his hardest to convey good science and mathematic rigour into pointing out Haramein's errors, and I see Haramein's supporters as the ones with a hurt ego. Whilst Bob-athon's arguments are logical and sound, Haramein's fanatical fans are using all sorts of condescending names and informal arguments to support their cause. (Pseudoskeptic, closed-minded..etc)

Also, there was an exchange of letters between Bob-athon and Haramein, and Haramein came across appallingly. He seemed anxious and frightened, and he obviously did not have nearly as much scientific/mathematical knowledge as Bob-athon. (A school teacher I might add, not a physicist on par with Einstein)

I implore you all to read the blog, and make up your mind. I understand that many of you will not bother, as you would rather remain ignorant and think that anyone criticizing Haramein is a pseudo-skeptic, sheeple etc. If you are so eager to believe Haramein's nonsense that you fail to use critical thinking, and through all logic and common-sense out the window, then good riddance. If you do not have the intellectual curiosity to look at both sides of every issue, then you are a fool and deserve to throw away your money on Haramein's drivel...

There was a bit of an exchange took place between Bob-a-thon and Haramein, legitimate issues were raised and Haramein's defense is that there is a conspiracy among physicists to suppress his work. And nothing about the issues raised was directly addressed.


Here's some more sheeples discussing the flaws in his papers:
http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1251881447/all
Yes, and there has been posted a rebuttal by Bob-athon. Haramein comes across as a fool, and he is unable to defend his theories scientifically. He just rambles on about some conspiracy, and fails to address the legitimate issues... It is really frustrating as to why people still persist in believing bollocks even when faced with the evidence! Are people so insecure that they cannot think for themselves, and therefore follow some self-proclaimed genius just because their reality is based around his ideas! There are other ideas that are equally brilliant and scientifically sound that support a spiritual reality, but Haramein, no matter how you look at it, is wrong!

Also, those 'sheeple' you refer to, are actually called physicists. They have studied the subject for at least three years, and therefore obviously know much more than many of on the subject, yet you pretend you have the authority to disregard them?

Imagine if I came into your place of work without having any knowledge of what you do, and called you all sheeple for doing what you have been doing for years, and saying my random way of doing things are better:

Would you view me as a prophet, or a mental-case? Really, the arrogance is astounding!

Physics is a really difficult subject, and you cannot pretend to understand it without having spent years learning advanced mathematics.

[Unified Serenity]

Hey Cyrus,

I have enjoyed viewing the Haramein videos. I do believe there is something to sacred geometry, but I am not very up on higher level maths. I am going to read the blogs you have posted because I do believe in suspending one's "beliefs" and review information from both sides, and see if it will change any of my previous beliefs. It is the only way I have managed to grow and accept that things aren't always as they seem. Then again, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. :pleasantry:

[onawah]

They said very much the same kind of thing about Einstein in the beginning of his career, one reason why I reserve judgement.
Scientists are often blinded by the amount of theory they swallow simply because it is "accepted".
We see that all the time now, and it is a subject for many whistleblower reports in academic fields.
The scientific community is just as prone to mind control and programming as any other community, perhaps more so.
Similar things have been said about Graham Hancock, Velikovsky, Z. Sitchin.
And yet many people with no training whatsoever in their fields have been able to intuit that they are onto something.
Personally, I think that is cause for celebration!

[CyRus]

Hey Cyrus,

I have enjoyed viewing the Haramein videos. I do believe there is something to sacred geometry, but I am not very up on higher level maths. I am going to read the blogs you have posted because I do believe in suspending one's "beliefs" and review information from both sides, and see if it will change any of my previous beliefs. It is the only way I have managed to grow and accept that things aren't always as they seem. Then again, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. :pleasantry:

An intelligent approach! :) The thing is, I can understand that if one is not well-versed in science, his theories can seem very interesting, The fact is, they are wrong, and there is no way around it! A little tip:
If someone claims they understand reality completely, they are incorrect. (Even Nobel Laureates in physics understand this fact, and are humble in admitting that the more they learn the less they know)

[Unified Serenity]

Cyrus:

This part seems to be part of Bob's main problem with harameins paper , "(b) His theory implies that the nucleus of a single atom of hydrogen has a mass of nearly a billion tons."

I am no physicist or Mathmatician, so can you explain the difference in mass vs. weight? I think most lay people jump to the weight idea when mass is talked about, and apparently Haramein is not talking about weight. That being said, it seems odd that hydrogen can be put into a container and held. How can a single atom of it be a mass of a billion tons? Am I just not understanding something here? Even if haramein is wrong and this guy is right in pointing out Haramein's commen above, is there a large mass to hydrogen that I don't understand?

I think one of the biggest problems is that physics is not a discipline most people are comfortable with and that could also be added to higher level math. It's hard to get around most of Bob's pov because it's basically talking about issues that are not easily grasped without some extensive study. Haramein does a good job in presenting his ideas, but if his basis of theory is wrong and that is only understood on a higher math level, then how is the average person going to understand that? Does this affect the sacred geometry information he presents? I do find the golden ratio stuff very interesting as well as the other significant patterns we see in the universe and planet as presented by Haramein. If you have information on this cyrus I'd be interested in seeing that posted in response.

[Agape]

This part seems to be part of Bob's main problem with harameins paper , "(b) His theory implies that the nucleus of a single atom of hydrogen has a mass of nearly a billion tons."

I am no physicist or Mathmatician, so can you explain the difference in mass vs. weight? I think most lay people jump to the weight idea when mass is talked about, and apparently Haramein is not talking about weight. That being said, it seems odd that hydrogen can be put into a container and held. How can a single atom of it be a mass of a billion tons? Am I just not understanding something here? Even if haramein is wrong and this guy is right in pointing out Haramein's commen above, is there a large mass to hydrogen that I don't understand?

I think one of the biggest problems is that physics is not a discipline most people are comfortable with and that could also be added to higher level math. It's hard to get around most of Bob's pov because it's basically talking about issues that are not easily grasped without some extensive study. Haramein does a good job in presenting his ideas, but if his basis of theory is wrong and that is only understood on a higher math level, then how is the average person going to understand that? Does this affect the sacred geometry information he presents? I do find the golden ratio stuff very interesting as well as the other significant patterns we see in the universe and planet as presented by Haramein. If you have information on this cyrus I'd be interested in seeing that posted in response.


There you go...;) It's not about mass or weight , it's about potential. Weak and strong energies binding particles together to particular formation.

Mass and weight as well as other measurables are subjective to other interactive forces in the system .

Imagine ( as an example ) a single atom of hydrogene travelling in empty space , so called . At the beginning of course, it originated in one system or another, the way it was formed required force that produced 'cluster' , organized to form keeping intact for indefinite period of time, the force that has produced it was billion squared times greater to result in prducing organized atoms of helium and hydrogene and what else .
The forces binding the atoms are but fracture of that force . Now let it travel in empty space till it exhausts its kinetic energy . It naturally has one ..but , one day the kinetic energy is exhausted and its structure dissipates and it can not hold longer together .
So you could measure the time it takes to exhaust its kinetic energy to understand the potential of its binding forces. It may be really big I can assure you.

But nothing about weight or mass, those come to question only when your atom is trapped within one or another system full of interactive forces .


So in a way ..if Nassim said anything of that sort..it'd be very inaccurate but I presume he referred to the potential of binding forces.


They're all searching for the 'unified field theory' to explain everything in one patch and they're none able to do this till now ..but , on the other hand, they are in know. How ? Simple logic . The Universe is one. No matter how many dimensions and multi-verses and layers it contains , it moves and interacts according to certain rules so it's fairly impossible that phenomena are impossible to explain on bases of singularity .

The problem is certainly not that there would be two or many entirely different version of universe colliding together. The only thing that collides and fails so far is their theories .

But, people should not be blamed for introducing different concept of science , obviously the standard model as followed till now is very limited, it's in diapers and except few principial rules each of the suggested theories arrives at its own limits sooner or later.

[Anno]

I don't think attacking Haramein as a person is going to help anyone discuss his theories. As soon as you step in to Strawman territory (especially using Freud references) you're going to alienate your audience and discredit yourself.
The only exception I make is when people claim to be something special like an alien or high level insider. They're creating a strawman for themselves rather than just saying, "This is what I think." As far as I've seen, Haramein doesn't do this. He's just a guy with some ideas.

I like Haramein's theory that the heart has a black hole in its center and that's why there's the unaccounted for loss in weight upon death. It's the only theory for this I've seen that seems at least theoretically plausible. Saying it's wrong because supermassive blackholes are too heavy isn't enough of an answer for me.

How do we know how 'heavy' they are? How was it measured, who did it and can we re-create it for ourselves?

Can there only be one type of black hole? Perhaps there are more than one type or he's using the term black hole and it's something else that's similar but different?

As for the complex nature, Einstein said that all true theories should be explainable to the layman using plain English and if you can't then it's probably wrong. Can Haramein's theories be explained in this way?

[CyRus]

Cyrus:

This part seems to be part of Bob's main problem with harameins paper , "(b) His theory implies that the nucleus of a single atom of hydrogen has a mass of nearly a billion tons."

I am no physicist or Mathmatician, so can you explain the difference in mass vs. weight? I think most lay people jump to the weight idea when mass is talked about, and apparently Haramein is not talking about weight. That being said, it seems odd that hydrogen can be put into a container and held. How can a single atom of it be a mass of a billion tons? Am I just not understanding something here? Even if haramein is wrong and this guy is right in pointing out Haramein's commen above, is there a large mass to hydrogen that I don't understand?

I think one of the biggest problems is that physics is not a discipline most people are comfortable with and that could also be added to higher level math. It's hard to get around most of Bob's pov because it's basically talking about issues that are not easily grasped without some extensive study. Haramein does a good job in presenting his ideas, but if his basis of theory is wrong and that is only understood on a higher math level, then how is the average person going to understand that? Does this affect the sacred geometry information he presents? I do find the golden ratio stuff very interesting as well as the other significant patterns we see in the universe and planet as presented by Haramein. If you have information on this cyrus I'd be interested in seeing that posted in response.
Exactly, and that is but one of the fundamental flaws Haramein makes. Mass is a property of matter. Weight is the effect gravity has on mass, which is why you weigh less on the moon than on the Earth, despite your mass being the same.
Of course it is odd that Haramein states that every atom is a black hole. If this were the case, a single atom of hydrogen would devour the Earth...

I am not a physicist by the way, I have only had a couple of courses in college whilst doing my engineering degree.

Sacred geometry I do not know much about unfortunately. There are interesting relations with regards to phi in art for example (the golden mean etc), however, that is about as far as I know.

My main problem with Haramein is this:

The man calls himself a physicist. In fact, he frequently equates himself to Einstein and has the arrogance to state that the foundations of modern physics are wrong due to his 'theories'. Yet, it is perfectly clear to anyone who has critical thinking skills (and a knowledge of basic physics) that he knows NOTHING of the subject he is a self-confessed genius in. Thereby, I feel he is deluding his audience, as the majority of which I assume has little to no scientific background. If he hadn't implicitly stated that he is a physicist and did not try to prove his theories with faulty mathematics, I would just laugh him off as yet another New-Age guru (similar to David Wilcock). I have the utmost respect for Graham Hancock for example, because he has very interesting insights and theories, and speaks from his own experience.

Haramein does nothing of the sort. He first passes himself off as 'the greatest physicist since Einstein' and then regurgitates garbage that he has no knowledge of whatsoever. It is slightly better than guess-work...

Also, he blatantly shows his disregard for science! For example, he always states that his papers have been peer-reviewed, which is utter rubbish! The closest he has come to peer-review was when a reputable scientific journal published a page on recent conferences which he happened to have held.
It was a list of speakers and topics, that is all! Yet he spins this garbage to his followers that he has now been peer-reviewed...

This is why the topic of Haramein really aggravates me! He is either a blatant liar, or a very deluded individual. Either way, it is disturbing as he is getting more and more attention in the alternative media of late and is dragging the reputation of this field through the mud at the same time!

He doesn't deserve to be on the same stage with remarkable individuals such as Bob Dean and Graham Hancock, it belittles them. (They presumably think he is genuine, since idiots like David Wilcock obviously advocate him to everyone they meet)

That's my two cents anyway.

[CyRus]

I don't think attacking Haramein as a person is going to help anyone discuss his theories. As soon as you step in to Strawman territory (especially using Freud references) you're going to alienate your audience and discredit yourself.
The only exception I make is when people claim to be something special like an alien or high level insider. They're creating a strawman for themselves rather than just saying, "This is what I think." As far as I've seen, Haramein doesn't do this. He's just a guy with some ideas.

I like Haramein's theory that the heart has a black hole in its center and that's why there's the unaccounted for loss in weight upon death. It's the only theory for this I've seen that seems at least theoretically plausible. Saying it's wrong because supermassive blackholes are too heavy isn't enough of an answer for me.

How do we know how 'heavy' they are? How was it measured, who did it and can we re-create it for ourselves?

Can there only be one type of black hole? Perhaps there are more than one type or he's using the term black hole and it's something else that's similar but different?

As for the complex nature, Einstein said that all true theories should be explainable to the layman using plain English and if you can't then it's probably wrong. Can Haramein's theories be explained in this way?
According to Einstein's theory of relativity (Haramein's idol), a sufficiently dense mass will deform space-time to such an extent that the gravity of this mass will be so strong that light cannot escape. In essence, this is why a black hole is called a "Black hole". Therefore, by the very definition of a black hole, it has to have a large mass! Ergo, if your heart has a black hole in the center....you can imagine how ridiculous this sounds! Haramein is not saying what he thinks, he is saying he is a scientist and what he is saying is therefore truth!

Anyway, let's just for the sake of argument adopt the ridiculous notion that the heart has a black-hole at it's centre(!!!!), how would this account for the weight-loss at the moment of death? (Even the concept of instantaneous weight loss at death is a very uncertain claim) He throws around this stuff, that all sounds fancy, but fails to make any sense. What is the point of the science of physics if it turns into New-Age story-telling?

There is only one type of black-hole, unless you count the one Haramein appears to pull his theories out of...

Given what I have tried to explain to you, do you still believe that a black hole is at the centre of your heart? If you take into account of what a black hole is, that it must weigh a sh*tload if it has the capacity to bend spacetime and trap light in it? It is statements like these that "kinda" make me doubt that Haramein is a physicist...

I think I might proclaim myself to be the worlds greatest physicist, say we are all fractal components of the supermassive black hole in the center of my living room, and make a lot of money in the process! :)

[Mark]

I read much of Bob-athon's stuff, but not all. Bob is coming from a traditional viewpoint and his attitude is indeed that of a debunker, he uses subtle psychological arguments in order to make those reading feel silly for believing Harreiman instead of going with mainstream physics. His scientific arguments are also from the mainstream and he alternately creates strawman arguments and appeals to the foundational lessons of mainstream physics (i.e. laws of motion). He also misunderstands, or is unable to conceptualize Haramein's language in a couple of places where Haramein uses the language of the macrocosm to describe his microcosmic and unity-based theoretical constructs. He then uses this misunderstanding in order to deride and then make fun of Haramein. Whether he does this purposefully or not is not really important, but it is another psychological ploy that has no place in a scientific discussion.

As someone who is ABD in a PhD program, I understand intimately what is required in order to present and substantiate a scientific argument amongst other scientists. As someone who has researched psychic and spiritual phenomena for the greater part of my life, I understand the difficulty in finding an acceptable language to insert such ideas into mainstream science, which is inherently inimical to such an insertion.

Currently, mainstream science is still not ready. For Nassim, his path remains uphill and he will continue to have debunkers until something occurs that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the current understanding that mainstream physics puts forth regarding the makeup and processes that govern the universe are incorrect and limited in their assertions. His addition of sacred geometry to mainstream science is the utmost in heresies for the traditionally minded and no matter how much colloquial sense he makes to those that lean toward a spiritual understanding of our multiverse, the more resistance he will receive from the mainstream.

It is much the same as the problems that occur with forbidden archaeology. No matter how much physical proof those who research such things come up with, no matter how old the bones they find, in whatever strata of sediment or however petrified, they are met with silence and/or ridicule. The same is true of psychical phenomena, as far as the mainstream, again, is concerned. Of course, there are those beyond the mainstream that realize the truth and recognize those whose theories and speculations approach that truth. Perhaps Haramein is one of these. Whatever the case might be, the things he speaks on resonate. Because they resonate, they have power. Because they have power, primarily in the area of visualization and the unification of the micro and macro aspects of Creation, people resonate to them.

We will see what is true and what is not in these areas soon enough. The most relevant and upcoming example of that is ELEnin, and what happens to it once it cross the plane of the ecliptic and then later in the month, when it eclipses the sun. If it flares, grows brighter and its coma expands to a terrific size, and if there are planetary electrical discharges, then there are some mainstream scientists out there who will have to leave their egos and credentials at the door, as the electric universe theory and the predictions of those who follow it will have born fruit.

[CyRus]

I read much of Bob-athon's stuff, but not all. Bob is coming from a traditional viewpoint and his attitude is indeed that of a debunker, he uses subtle psychological arguments in order to make those reading feel silly for believing Harreiman instead of going with mainstream physics. His scientific arguments are also from the mainstream and he alternately creates strawman arguments and appeals to the foundational lessons of mainstream physics (i.e. laws of motion). He also misunderstands, or is unable to conceptualize Haramein's language in a couple of places where Haramein uses the language of the macrocosm to describe his microcosmic and unity-based theoretical constructs. He then uses this misunderstanding in order to deride and then make fun of Haramein. Whether he does this purposefully or not is not really important, but it is another psychological ploy that has no place in a scientific discussion.

As someone who is ABD in a PhD program, I understand intimately what is required in order to present and substantiate a scientific argument amongst other scientists. As someone who has researched psychic and spiritual phenomena for the greater part of my life, I understand the difficulty in finding an acceptable language to insert such ideas into mainstream science, which is inherently inimical to such an insertion.

Currently, mainstream science is still not ready. For Nassim, his path remains uphill and he will continue to have debunkers until something occurs that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the current understanding that mainstream physics puts forth regarding the makeup and processes that govern the universe are incorrect and limited in their assertions. His addition of sacred geometry to mainstream science is the utmost in heresies for the traditionally minded and no matter how much colloquial sense he makes to those that lean toward a spiritual understanding of our multiverse, the more resistance he will receive from the mainstream.

It is much the same as the problems that occur with forbidden archaeology. No matter how much physical proof those who research such things come up with, no matter how old the bones they find, in whatever strata of sediment or however petrified, they are met with silence and/or ridicule. The same is true of psychical phenomena, as far as the mainstream, again, is concerned. Of course, there are those beyond the mainstream that realize the truth and recognize those whose theories and speculations approach that truth. Perhaps Haramein is one of these. Whatever the case might be, the things he speaks on resonate. Because they resonate, they have power. Because they have power, primarily in the area of visualization and the unification of the micro and macro aspects of Creation, people resonate to them.

We will see what is true and what is not in these areas soon enough. The most relevant and upcoming example of that is ELEnin, and what happens to it once it cross the plane of the ecliptic and then later in the month, when it eclipses the sun. If it flares, grows brighter and its coma expands to a terrific size, and if there are planetary electrical discharges, then there are some mainstream scientists out there who will have to leave their egos and credentials at the door, as the electric universe theory and the predictions of those who follow it will have born fruit.

He actually presents his arguments logically and rationally, and I actually find him to be too courteous towards Haramein. The 'mainstream' is based on hundreds of years of research, and is pretty sound! Consciousness is different, because it does not seem to obey modern physics. However, this seems to me to allude to the fact that consciousness is a fundamental force. This is against the mainstream view, but it has sound scientific support!

It does NOT give Haramein the right to re-write everything we have learned over the past centuries of research and blatantly state falsehoods that are logically, practically and also theoretically impossible! The 'mainstream' physics is actually very well understood, and anyone who blatantly states otherwise is a fool!

Mainstream science is not ready for what?! If you mean the fact that consciousness is beyond our minds then you are wrong, as many scientists from a plethora of fields are independently coming to this conclusion through sound experiments and observations. Why rely on charlatans like Haramein when you have qualified academics who are changing the paradigm as we speak. It is a slow process, but it is causing serious debate in the academic circles due to the strong science behind these theories.

Haramein is causing nothing but ridicule, because his theories are not based on fact and are wrong. I think you should look at 'real' research, and be amazed at what 'mainstream' science is figuring out! (NDEs, OBEs, PSI, mediumship... etc)

[Agape]

Oh well. One thing that needs to be stressed forwards ..to all the Pi and Phi fans ..that the answer to the question about universal order and chaos does not look like set of constants, number or numbers.

Numbers, however odd it may feel to todays humans ..are abstract systems we have agreed on long ago ( to forget about it ) and now we are trying to paste and correlate those numerical systems with actual physical processes.

And the constants are just about valid for this solar system .


Never forget though that maths or physics, the theory is quite like an art . You can go painting and brushing it and the art and theories have no end and it has to be symmetrical so also beautiful.
Till it's symmetrical and beautiful it has a chance for success.


The whole quiz is about the living organisation/intelligence in us which we can mostly experience as an abstract only is far more complicated and more complex than what is happening in innert matter and its emptiness around .

That's why Buddhism comes with 'suchness', in another words, try to see things as they are without inventing another theory/concept about it ..



Have you ever thought about if the time and space as we know it , out of sudden, came to an end ?


It's improbable . It 's not going to happen. How do you know . There's more truth than theory all around ..


Time for goodnight :sleep:

[ThePythonicCow]

They said very much the same kind of thing about Einstein in the beginning of his career,
Anyone outside the norm, who gets any notice, can expect such comments.

Such comments do not tell one whether or not they are inspired geniuses with great new insights.

The only reliable way I know to distinguish is to do it yourself.

There has been previous discussion of Nassim on this forum, such as in the thread Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage? (April 2011) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?17540-Nassim-Haramein-Fraud-or-Sage). I have no respect for Nassim's work, as I explained in these posts:

Charles' comments about a False Flag ET threat event: important new information (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)
Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage? (Post #35) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?17540-Nassim-Haramein-Fraud-or-Sage&p=189366&viewfull=1#post189366)

Paul LaViolette has a vastly better understanding of physics and cosmology. I recommend you search for LaViolette's works.

One quote from the first of my two posts I link above:
Well ... just think about that for a second. If just one (not to mention all) of the protons in your body had the mass of 100 billion galaxies (the known universe) then you would have collapsed into a black hole, taking me, earth, sun and the milky way galaxy with you. Heavy, dude. Pass the joint ... Or maybe you would have exploded into a Big Bang ... physics at such extremes is difficult for the best of them.
Nassim is not just wrong; he's not even laughably absurd; rather he's a fraudulent outrage (in my not so humble opinion.)

[ThePythonicCow]

Another post of mine on Nassim, which states my view perhaps more clearly: Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage? (Post #77) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?17540-Nassim-Haramein-Fraud-or-Sage&p=189833&viewfull=1#post189833).

[Mark]

It does NOT give Haramein the right to re-write everything we have learned over the past centuries of research and blatantly state falsehoods that are logically, practically and also theoretically impossible! The 'mainstream' physics is actually very well understood, and anyone who blatantly states otherwise is a fool!

Of course he has the right to do and say what he pleases exactly how he pleases, as he is a sovereign soul just like the rest of us and his path is his own destiny. How others perceive him is and how he helps still others to open their minds is what is truly at issue and there is little anyone can say or do about that, other than engage in the usual negatively-oriented methods and ad hominim attacks that really serve little purpose other than to create ill will among people just seeking information, about technicalities that really don't affect most people's daily, lived reality all that much aside from the fact that they are the very stuff of creation itself. :)

We'll all know the truth of everything eventually and the small points of disagreement will pale beneath the immensity of the Real, without the skewed perspective of our limited and material incarnative egos. Now, if he is a disinformation specialist, that is something else again, and yet still, such individuals serve their purpose.

In the meantime, the discussions, the debates and the real scientific inquiry are where the impetus remains. Perhaps as the hidden technological prowess of certain segments of society are revealed, or the potential arrival of BEings with higher technology nears, the truth of these matters will come clear. But the search itself seems to be the goal, rather than the destination. That is where neural nets shift and strengthen, not in the space where held orthodoxies remain encased in stone and the brittle stuff of argumentation and negativity.

[bitworm]

It does NOT give Haramein the right to re-write everything we have learned over the past centuries of research and blatantly state falsehoods that are logically, practically and also theoretically impossible! The 'mainstream' physics is actually very well understood, and anyone who blatantly states otherwise is a fool!

Of course he has the right to do and say what he pleases exactly how he pleases, as he is a sovereign soul just like the rest of us and his path is his own destiny. How others perceive him is and how he helps still others to open their minds is what is truly at issue and there is little anyone can say or do about that, other than engage in the usual negatively-oriented methods and ad hominim attacks that really serve little purpose other than to create ill will among people just seeking information, about technicalities that really don't affect most people's daily, lived reality all that much aside from the fact that they are the very stuff of creation itself. :)


Let's be clear, personally the guy seems like a good guy and I would guess that most would have no trouble agreeing that he puts his heart into his work. This is not an issue of character, it is about decorum.

I agree, people are sovereign souls, there are a number of communities they can choose to become a part of, so long as they are accepted and abide by the predetermined set of rules. And if one wishes to be accepted into the scientific community, he/she must play by its rules. By writing these papers, calling them 'peer-reviewed' and otherwise propping them up so he can stand on them, Haramein is indeed addressing the scientific community. And in science, you are not a sovereign soul, and you are not free to do and say as you please.

The reason science is resistant to change is because every new idea must have solid basis in scientific fact (not to be confused with colloquial 'fact'). There are egos involved, and few people like to be proven wrong, but at the end of the day a real scientist would- reluctantly welcome a properly established scientific fact whether or not it disproves one of his/her own. This kind of change takes time, because if you are going to remove a very large stone from the foundation of a building, you will want to make sure there is a irrefutable need for it to be removed, because you are going to have to set up a construction zone around the building and hire the heavy equipment.

And aside from these papers he has written, and the usage of ideas in these papers as scientific fact, the scientific community has no real problem with Haramein. In fact(colloquial, not scientific), he has inspired people who don't understand the math to go and study it so they can be in a position to confirm or deny his proper usage of scientific fact, and in this, he is actually doing something positive.

[NeoEmc2]

Amazing lecture from the first video link. It's three parts and I've only watched two so far but I am amazed.

I've known about Nassim for a couple of years now but I've never sat, watched and actually pay attention to one of his lectures. This particular one though just blew me away. The way he describes things is so easy to understand - at least to me it was.

I would highly recommend anyone to watch these if you want to get a mathematical understanding of how our universe works.

One thing that really stood out to me was where humans are in the grand scheme of things. You can go out to space and travel forever into infinity. If you were to go inward dividing things into smaller and smaller pieces you will also be divining forever into infinity. We are in the middle.

That statement rang a bell when I heard Nassim mention it and backing it up with mathematics. The reason it "rang a bell" was due to another lecture I've watched by a man named Robert Bell - no pun intended - titled Everything is Spiritual (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?3975-Everything-is-spiritual&p=35333#post35333).

You can check out that lecture on my original post HERE (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?3975-Everything-is-spiritual&p=35333#post35333).

Robert Bell's lecture has to do with the Hebrew Bible and how math relates to it. Towards the end of the lecture Robert states clearly that in the grand scheme of things in our illusion, humans are in the middle.

Putting these two together just blew me away when I made the connection. Robert Bell gives you the spiritual definition of the statement "humans are in the middle" and Nassim gives you the math to back it up. It's brilliant!

I would highly suggest to watch the Robert Bell lecture first and then watch the Nassim lecture after. Hopefully it will shed some light into your world.

Happy watching.

Peace.

[Jake]

Again, I feel compelled to comment:
I have spoken previously about Haramein. (See my thread: Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?) This man is not a physicist. He is clearly delusional, and while he has many theories which, for lack of a better word, sound intriguing, it is not physics at all. I can understand that within this community, there are very few people with the scientific fortitude to distinguish BS from good science. This is disturbing, as it seriously harms the credibility of good researchers.

Haramein is nothing but a skilled speaker, not a physicist. Anyone with at least a modest physics background (high-school) can spot the blatant flaws with Haramein's theories.

Hello, Cyrus. Please do not continue to attack the entire forum, based on your opinions of a few posts. :) Your thoughts and opinions are valuable to us all, but you show a strange disposition by projecting your judgement on the entire forum.


within this community, there are very few people with the scientific fortitude to distinguish BS from good science.

That is absolute hogwash. My goodness, how quickly we judge..

[CyRus]

Hello, Cyrus. Please do not continue to attack the entire forum, based on your opinions of a few posts. :) Your thoughts and opinions are valuable to us all, but you show a strange disposition by projecting your judgement on the entire forum.


within this community, there are very few people with the scientific fortitude to distinguish BS from good science.

That is absolute hogwash. My goodness, how quickly we judge..
That was not an attack, it was merely an observation. Seriously, if you somehow interpreted that as an insult, something obviously hit a nerve because it was not intended as such.

The lack of scientific knowledge is not necessarily negative, but it is frustrating for people who have dedicated a considerable amount of time grappling with subjects like mathematics and physics to be dismissed entirely by people who have zero knowledge of the subject, but who have been swayed by some snake-oil salesman with fancy sounding words!

Sometimes, calling a spade a spade is the only rational approach, and I will keep on exposing Haramein for the fool he is where ever he is brought up.. I want people to know the truth and not donate their hard-earned cash to an utter idiot..

[firstlook]

Cyrus,

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

Thanks. :)

[Jake]

Hello, Cyrus. Please do not continue to attack the entire forum, based on your opinions of a few posts. :) Your thoughts and opinions are valuable to us all, but you show a strange disposition by projecting your judgement on the entire forum.


within this community, there are very few people with the scientific fortitude to distinguish BS from good science.

That is absolute hogwash. My goodness, how quickly we judge..
That was not an attack, it was merely an observation. Seriously, if you somehow interpreted that as an insult, something obviously hit a nerve because it was not intended as such.

The lack of scientific knowledge is not necessarily negative, but it is frustrating for people who have dedicated a considerable amount of time grappling with subjects like mathematics and physics to be dismissed entirely by people who have zero knowledge of the subject, but who have been swayed by some snake-oil salesman with fancy sounding words!

Sometimes, calling a spade a spade is the only rational approach, and I will keep on exposing Haramein for the fool he is where ever he is brought up.. I want people to know the truth and not donate their hard-earned cash to an utter idiot..
Of course. I appreciate the clarification. Although, I cannot agree! :) This forum is full of amazing minds. I have seen that demonstrated over and over.

We can all agree that nobody should donate their hard earned cash to an utter idiot.. Everyone should ABSOLUTELY do their own research and should endeavor to NOT be deceived, and to expose (if possible) the lies and dis-info, when they come across it.

Yet I completely disagree with your 'observation' regarding the overall scientific savvy and/or reasoning of folks in this community. My own 'observation' is much different. :)

[Anno]

[...]Nassim is not just wrong; he's not even laughably absurd; rather he's a fraudulent outrage (in my not so humble opinion.)

That reminded me of when you're in school and a teacher swears and everyone is =O and just knows "OK, this is serious." I did a lol. =]

[CyRus]

Of course. I appreciate the clarification. Although, I cannot agree! :) This forum is full of amazing minds. I have seen that demonstrated over and over.

We can all agree that nobody should donate their hard earned cash to an utter idiot.. Everyone should ABSOLUTELY do their own research and should endeavor to NOT be deceived, and to expose (if possible) the lies and dis-info, when they come across it.

Yet I completely disagree with your 'observation' regarding the overall scientific savvy and/or reasoning of folks in this community. My own 'observation' is much different. :)
Fair enough! =) Perhaps I haven't been frequenting the right threads.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

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

We encourage both successful and courteous communication amongst members. Fortunately, in this case anyway, those two agree.

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

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

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

[onawah]

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

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?9452-Kind-methods-for-civil-discourse-on-Avalon...

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found much to agree with in the following post # 21 from Elixir on the "Fraud or Sage?" thread at
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?17540-Nassim-Haramein-Fraud-or-Sage/page2
"Re: Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?

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

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

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

Bob's blog contains more of these 'misinterpretations'.
Also, check out the definition of Bob a-thon that Nassim points to, it's very funny:


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

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

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

Also liked these comments from Shiva777 on the same thread:
"Originally Posted by shiva777 View Post
Haramein has lots of good info...much of it based on the distorted geometry of our hologram...so it leads to misleading conclusions in many instances.

The fibonacci and golden mean,for example,are not NATURAL laws...they are the manipulation of our hologram that have lead to parasitism and the disconnect from Eternal Living Light conciousness...to get some idea of what I am talking about,scroll down about a quarter of the way down and open your minds to a whole new understanding of physics

http://www.azuritepress.com/New%20Co..._summary_2.php

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


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

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

Personally, if Nassim is a fool, then I think he is a holy fool, also known as Heyokah or Coyote, and that is something completely different.

[CyRus]

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

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

We encourage both successful and courteous communication amongst members. Fortunately, in this case anyway, those two agree.

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

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

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

Again, I did not state this anywhere! I believe I said: "within this community, there are very few with the scientific fortitude to distinguish good science from BS." Not one mention of stupid anywhere, they are your words, not mine. Furthermore, a lack of scientific knowledge is not synonymous with stupidity, there are a great many people of great intellect who have no knowledge of science whatsoever.

[onawah]

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

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

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

Nassim is a kind of whistleblower, in that he is not afraid to challenge accepted beliefs in the scientific community. PA and Project Camelot protect whistleblowers, even if their information is not entirely correct, as part of their mission, as you must surely realize by now.

[firstlook]

Cyrus,

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

Thanks. :)

Cyrus,

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

Thanks. :)

[ThePythonicCow]

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


Again, I did not state this anywhere! I believe I said: "within this community, there are very few with the scientific fortitude to distinguish good science from BS." Not one mention of stupid anywhere, they are your words, not mine. Furthermore, a lack of scientific knowledge is not synonymous with stupidity, there are a great many people of great intellect who have no knowledge of science whatsoever.

Yes - of course - I was not quoting you in that phrase.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¤=[Post Update]=¤



Cyrus,

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

Thanks. :)

You've likely already seen my recommendation above, and I realize I am not CyRus. But in case anyone missed it, I recommend Paul LaViolette.

[CyRus]

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

¤=[Post Update]=¤

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

[onawah]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) “His overall argument is circular”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the best examples is the so-called bare mass or bare field in quantum field theory. This issue has been so buried that many physicists are completely unaware of it, and the issue does not even appear as an entry in Wikipedia as very little literature can be found on it. However, the problem is extremely significant, that is, that even the standard model does not come anywhere close to predicting the mass of an atom that has been “measured” in experimental studies. In fact, when the standard model does an analysis of an electron entity, it finds that this entity must have infinite mass and infinite charge indeed. The approach of the standard model has been to ignore these results and use a renormalization term typically denoted as Z-1 to make the theory agree with experimental studies http://universe-review.ca/R15-12-QFT.htm#Green. This is an enormous fudge factor and in this article discussing it http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2008-02/msg01081.html and quoting reputable physicists, the gentleman’s conclusions are quite telling:

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

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

On the cosmological level, this highly turbulent structure of horizons where velocities approach C may be the source of matter creation through sheering of the spacetime manifold itself at the quantum level which predicts a continuous matter creation model at black hole horizons instead of the current Big Bang approach with its dark matter/dark energy allegories http://cosmologystatement.org/. Recent findings http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100318-black-holes-immaculate-conception/ not only confirm the existence of black holes prior to galactic formation but as well may eventually confirm matter creation processes near and at horizons, as in a continuous creation model, instead of the conventional accretion of particles and dust, the source of which has not been identified by the standard Big Bang model http://cosmologystatement.org

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Folks,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Less tolerance for renegades?

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

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

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

What might happen to such a submission today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nassim Haramein
Research Director
The Resonance Project

[greybeard]

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

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

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

Chris

[onawah]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[onawah]

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

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

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

[CyRus]

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

Here is Bob-athon's reply to Haramein's letter: http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/nassims-response-to-bobathon.html All is not as it seems...

[onawah]

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

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

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

I cannot help but question the sincerity of this person.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CyRus]

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

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

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

I cannot help but question the sincerity of this person.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[onawah]

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

[Agape]

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

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

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




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


But he uses my name so be it.


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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Now who is who. :becky:



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


Do not disconnect . Closing session

[CyRus]

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

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

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

[onawah]

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

[onawah]

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

[CyRus]

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

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

[greybeard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please look at the list of names here they are highly qualified professionals.
Is there anyone one highly qualified (to the same level as these mentioned) on this forum willing to say these guys dont know their subject?
I think Nassim can not be labeled fraud in the light of these testimonies.
Chris

[araucaria]

I have had a few days away from the computer so I’m composing a post that may not tie in too well with the previous discussion. I note however that CyRus has been a non-physicist for a considerably shorter length of time than Nassim Haramein, and I have been one for even longer than him (that was a joke, never mind).

This nomenclature issue hides a more serious one. Tom van Flandern writes: ‘I see yet another phenomenon – new to our era of rapid progress in science-which mitigates against change even in the face of overwhelming need for it. Few scientists consider themselves qualified very far outside of their own areas of expertise… Few, if any, scientists have the breadth of knowledge to see the full picture for a given model.’ Etc.

Maybe if we recognized greater ‘breadth of knowledge’ for what it is (in Haramein and Einstein too, a philosopher and musician on the side), we would appreciate these encyclopaedists more instead of seeing them as ‘idiots like David Wilcock’ (CyRus)…

Much of science (I am not talking about the scientific method) is conducted like a mystery religion. It has a public temple at one end, and a veil behind which a small number of priests operate. Many scientists operate, no not behind the veil, but in front of it. The veil, I would suggest, is any limiting factor such as the speed of light. What keeps the veil in place is the mantra that nothing can exceed the speed of light.

According to Einstein’s famous equation, energy is a function of the SQUARE of the speed of light. Either this is just a mathematical formula or it is a physical law. I got the impression it was the latter… So energy is definitely behind the veil. It breaks the speed limit.

Or take gravity as above-quoted van Flandern, another maverick scientist who was very mainstream at one point – does in Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets (tiens tiens!). Newton never said what gravity was, he just explains how it works in this neck of the woods. Einstein says it is the curvature of spacetime. What we are given this side of the veil is an analogy that doesn’t hold water: gravity is what makes a ball sink down when placed on a rubber sheet. This is to forget that the rubber sheet only behaves in such a way within a gravity field – it would not move at all in zero gravity, where there is no Down! So this little analogy tells us that rubber is relatively elastic and that gravity is… gravity! (And your own analogy, dear CyRus, of the surgeon tells us nothing at all – maybe the healer with no scalpel would have made a better point?)

And what is the speed of gravity? Er, it’s an instantaneous force, as far as anyone can tell, that’s apparently what astronomers are told anyway. (N.B. This is NOT Einstein’s ‘spooky force at a distance’, though it certainly sounds like one!) That is a speed that could be written as c * infinity – very definitely behind the veil. Actually, Van Flandern conducted a few experiments with solar eclipses and distant stars, and found that the (minimum) speed of gravity, if memory serves, is ‘only’ a couple of billion times the speed of light.

So the nature of gravity is definitely behind the veil. FYI, Van Flandern goes back to Laplace’s idea of aether moving at incredible speeds in all directions with ‘gravitons’ interacting with particles of matter. Clusters of matter will produce a shielding effect on the distant side compared with the near side. Basically, the aether would be one, possibly ultimate, form of energy, and gravity the effect of fluctuations in the energy field in the presence of matter.

Black holes are singularities where gravity reaches infinity. So black holes are quite categorically behind the veil. Any discussion of them is premature if we are not quite sure what gravity even is. A specialist like Hawkins can be excused for doing some pretty dramatic U-turns over the years. Scientists are unhappy with infinities in their equations and have a process known as renormalization to get rid of them. Nassim Haramein says that this is perfectly unjustified sleight of hand and will have nothing to do with it, which is why he can have black holes at every scale (even mainstream theory btw allows for mini-black holes as well as galactic ones).

Incidentally, Van Flandern takes the opposite view, saying that any singularity in an equation ‘does not exist in nature’ and therefore no exception should be made for black holes (or the big bang for that matter). Whether you see no black holes or everything as having an event horizon may be just a question of perspective. Van Flandern is also against the view that ‘there is no deep reality to the world around us, despite our wish to believe the contrary from reason and the information of our senses’.

This I think is where people lose track of Haramein’s reasoning and where it can become as strange as quantum uncertainty. For if you add infinity to both sides of the equation, then (2+2) + infinity = 4 + infinity, which can be anything - granted including whatever a charlatan might decide - but also this has got to be where free energy comes from. But Mr Bobathon says he doesn’t believe in free energy either – maybe he should hang around with Wade Frazier for a bit.

Two last quotes from Van Flandern’s preface:
‘Something is wrong with science – fundamentally wrong.’
‘Please do not, dear reader, either here or for anything important in your life, defer your judgment to experts.’

[onawah]

David Wilcock sheds a lot of light on some of the more incomprehensible aspects of this issue in a new radio interview which I found in the article here:
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=5ae104857c&view=lg&msg=1323f839b8a4e58a#1323f839b8a4e58a_5

"a one-hour radio show on WBAI’s “Heart of Mind” program

Since they delete shows from their archives after a few months, it's mirrored here for permanent distribution.

If you’re on a PC, right-click and select Save As. Mac users right-click and select Save Link As.
http://divinecosmos.com/podcasts/wilcock_hrtomind_110822.mp3

[greybeard]

Thanks onawah
I think these guys, Nassim, David W and David Sereda, are our future--- the leading path finders so to speak.
Not saying they have it all right but they are pointing in the right direction.
Chris

[Firinn]

... it is frustrating for people who have dedicated a considerable amount of time grappling with subjects like mathematics and physics to be dismissed entirely by people who have zero knowledge of the subject, but who have been swayed by some snake-oil salesman with fancy sounding words!


I am not a physicist by the way, I have only had a couple of courses in college whilst doing my engineering degree.

Sacred geometry I do not know much about unfortunately. There are interesting relations with regards to phi in art for example (the golden mean etc), however, that is about as far as I know.

Hi CyRus, three words spring to mind. Kettle, Pot & Black.

With love,
Firinn

[araucaria]

Thanks onawah
I think these guys, Nassim, David W and David Sereda, are our future--- the leading path finders so to speak.
Not saying they have it all right but they are pointing in the right direction.
Chris

Onawah describes Nassim’s defence as ‘dignified’, and one only has to view ‘the gentleman’s’ undignified response to see what she means, so I won’t go there.

But since you mention Paul LaViolette, CyRus, I’d just like to suggest how mainstream science can get entwined with other mainstream methods, in this case plausible deniability – in connection with pulsars.

Pulsars are ‘well understood by scientists’ as the saying goes. They are ‘rapidly rotating neutron stars’, where ‘stars’ means stars and ‘rapidly rotating’ can be anything up to many times a second. The early ‘little green men’ hypothesis was ruled out because they would need a planet to live on and any planet would have been detectable (Hutchinson Encyclopedia of Science). Not necessarily. LaViolette sees pulsars as signs of intelligent life, but only as beacons, hence requiring no physical presence, planetary or otherwise. As I recall he also describes the official description of the pulsar as a physical impossibility – such an object would simply blow apart.

Here plausible deniability leads to preferring an impossible assumption to an intelligent life hypothesis, which seems to be ruled out from the start. I might go as far as to say that this could well define plausible deniability: the denial of intelligent life, or life at all, anywhere, in the solar system and beyond, or even on this planet, where Nassim Haramein is just another spinning top in precession and about to keel over after being hit by Paul LaViolette. I think there is room for both and many others as well. The more the merrier.

The universe is teeming with intelligent life. The question is, do we choose to be a part of it? The status quo is self-styled big fish (them) and supposedly small fry (us) in a small pond. The fear is generated by the thought of becoming small fish in a huge pond, which is not necessarily the case. We need to stop belittling ourselves, and by the same token stop belittling others.

[ulli]

@araucaria
The universe is teeming with intelligent life. The question is, do we choose to be a part of it? The status quo is self-styled big fish (them) and supposedly small fry (us) in a small pond. The fear is generated by the thought of becoming small fish in a huge pond, which is not necessarily the case. We need to stop belittling ourselves, and by the same token stop belittling others.

This sums it up. To take the pond analogy further, I suggest the idea that there are multiple ponds, all interconnected by tubes, which transport water and fish in vortex- like fashion. Each pond has it's own set of laws...some have salt water, hence are more boyant. Gravity functions differently in them.

I don't want to get involved in the Nassim discussion, as I rejected him long time ago, with a fierceness which even surprised myself. I simply cannot watch him. There may be a lesson there.

A)A couple more thoughts about this debate- how can a stick of two ends which stretch to infinity even HAVE a middle?

B)all discussions about metaphysical issues have attracted what looks to me like shady personalities...as the New Age movement grew plagiarism became rife...Dan Winter comes to mind.

C)when discussing other dimensions anything goes, nothing can be verified, the numbers can no longer be computed when all is infinite in all directions.
So all that remains is personal subjective presence, the I AM, constantly striving for objectivity.

D)when seeing people going on a stage to present their perception of this vast universe I see clergymen climbing up on a pulpit, and know that what will eventually bring them all down is their vanity.

[araucaria]

This sums it up. To take the pond analogy further, I suggest the idea that there are multiple ponds, all interconnected by tubes, which transport water and fish in vortex- like fashion. Each pond has it's own set of laws...some have salt water, hence are more boyant. Gravity functions differently in them.



Yes !
The other day I was at the palace at Fontainebleau. There were some huge carp in a small pond that came over, presumably for manna from heaven, like ducks and pigeons. Meanwhile, their colleagues next door were leaping into the air helping themselves to flies. Bottom line: even carp are looking outside of the box, however big the box. The trick is to realize that it isn’t a box with an inside and outside at all.

This morning I was flicking through Lao-Tse (for professional reasons, I do try to do some work now and again!). The Tao is about the paradoxes of infinity; here’s a page I particularly like:

‘Practice non-action.
Work without doing.
Taste the tasteless.
Magnify the small, increase the few.
Reward bitterness with care.

See simplicity in the complicated.
Achieve greatness in little things.

In the universe the difficult things are done as if they are easy.
In the universe great acts are made up of small deeds.
The sage does not attempt anything very big,
And thus achieved greatness.

Easy promises make for little trust.
Taking things lightly results in great difficulty.
Because the sage always confronts difficulties,
He never experiences them.’

I was once asked to find a better translation for ‘non-action’ (wu wei). After a week ;) I came up with… ‘effortlessness’. So hard to achieve, indeed.

Some responses to your comments Ulli:

“A)A couple more thoughts about this debate- how can a stick of two ends which stretch to infinity even HAVE a middle?”
By having a finite component (cf. my ‘how long is a piece of string’ thing a while back) – it measures an infinite number of infinitesimal units of length taking it from A to B (this is Zeno’s paradox). Finite and infinite are not opposites, they are mutually embedded, at least they are around here.

“B)all discussions about metaphysical issues have attracted what looks to me like shady personalities...as the New Age movement grew plagiarism became rife...Dan Winter comes to mind.”
Sure. I’ve not come across Dan Winter, no matter. You have obviously developed your personal BS detector to suss out plagiarism, machine-think, inhumanity, Satan the imitator, call it what you will, because they don’t fit in with your own creativity. Now if you were Satan looking for a really good disguise, would you choose someone like George HW Bush or someone like David Wilcock (no disrespect to either gentleman, just examples)? See what I mean?

“C)when discussing other dimensions anything goes, nothing can be verified, the numbers can no longer be computed when all is infinite in all directions.”
Verification is called joining dots. If my piece of string is the length of the great pyramid, I will be interested to find that x pieces of equal length go exactly round the world. It’s amazing what you can do with a piece of string: make 12 equidistant marks on it, tie both ends together, place pins at 3, 7 and 12/0: you‘ve just drawn yourself a right angle. Very useful for building houses etc.

“So all that remains is personal subjective presence, the I AM, constantly striving for objectivity.”
Yes, i.e. connecting lots of dots; building things that don’t fall down. When you’ve built your pyramid, it becomes part of your objective reality, and mine.

‘D)when seeing people going on a stage to present their perception of this vast universe I see clergymen climbing up on a pulpit, and know that what will eventually bring them all down is their vanity.’
Yes, some of their do bash their bibles rather hard, don’t they? But aren’t we all here to present our perception of this vast universe, if only backstage to present our unobtrusive presence as observers or supporters? In other words, we all stand somewhere along that stick that ultimately has no middle – and ultimately it doesn’t matter where.

[firstlook]

"Effectiveness is the measure of truth."

Just something to think about.

[onawah]

I will continue to be grateful to Nassim for going on stage to talk about incomprehensible phenomena in such an amusing and interesting way that I actually found myself experiencing the cosmos in a delightfully new and much more coherent fashion. He made me feel much happier to be here and part of all this mystery.
I still think he may be (as I stated in a previous thread) the reincarnation of Paramahansa Yogananda, come back to tell us in scientific terms what he perceived directly as a mystic and clairvoyant.
He also reminds me of a fictional character, Ed the young shaman in the popular TV show Northern Lights, who, although he appeared to be a bit of a fool to many, actually had a genius IQ and was very attuned to the unseen world.

[ulli]

"Effectiveness is the measure of truth."

Just something to think about.

Thinking, thinking....

Language is an example that comes to mind here.....when examined over the centuries it becomes an organic entity,
where even mistakes, if repeated often enough, become the norm.
If you want to go to a hardware store here in Costa Rica and ask for plywood,
they don't know what you mean, and not because you are using the English term, but because you didn't ask for PLAY wood.
Nobody remembers how it got that name, but let me guess.
A ply is a layer, and you can get 2 ply, 3 ply, sheets of wood, etc, so it's named that because of the manufacturing process.
But here in Costa Rica when ply wood was first imported no one knew that word nor it's meaning,
yet everybody knows 'play'.
Playwood it is.
How convenient.
I can see how easily this type of error can sneak into the physics versus metaphysics debate.

[ulli]

This sums it up. To take the pond analogy further, I suggest the idea that there are multiple ponds, all interconnected by tubes, which transport water and fish in vortex- like fashion. Each pond has it's own set of laws...some have salt water, hence are more boyant. Gravity functions differently in them.



Yes !
The other day I was at the palace at Fontainebleau. There were some huge carp in a small pond that came over, presumably for manna from heaven, like ducks and pigeons. Meanwhile, their colleagues next door were leaping into the air helping themselves to flies. Bottom line: even carp are looking outside of the box, however big the box. The trick is to realize that it isn’t a box with an inside and outside at all.

This morning I was flicking through Lao-Tse (for professional reasons, I do try to do some work now and again!). The Tao is about the paradoxes of infinity; here’s a page I particularly like:

‘Practice non-action.
Work without doing.
Taste the tasteless.
Magnify the small, increase the few.
Reward bitterness with care.

See simplicity in the complicated.
Achieve greatness in little things.

In the universe the difficult things are done as if they are easy.
In the universe great acts are made up of small deeds.
The sage does not attempt anything very big,
And thus achieved greatness.

Easy promises make for little trust.
Taking things lightly results in great difficulty.
Because the sage always confronts difficulties,
He never experiences them.’

I was once asked to find a better translation for ‘non-action’ (wu wei). After a week ;) I came up with… ‘effortlessness’. So hard to achieve, indeed.

Some responses to your comments Ulli:

“A)A couple more thoughts about this debate- how can a stick of two ends which stretch to infinity even HAVE a middle?”
By having a finite component (cf. my ‘how long is a piece of string’ thing a while back) – it measures an infinite number of infinitesimal units of length taking it from A to B (this is Zeno’s paradox). Finite and infinite are not opposites, they are mutually embedded, at least they are around here.

“B)all discussions about metaphysical issues have attracted what looks to me like shady personalities...as the New Age movement grew plagiarism became rife...Dan Winter comes to mind.”
Sure. I’ve not come across Dan Winter, no matter. You have obviously developed your personal BS detector to suss out plagiarism, machine-think, inhumanity, Satan the imitator, call it what you will, because they don’t fit in with your own creativity. Now if you were Satan looking for a really good disguise, would you choose someone like George HW Bush or someone like David Wilcock (no disrespect to either gentleman, just examples)? See what I mean?

“C)when discussing other dimensions anything goes, nothing can be verified, the numbers can no longer be computed when all is infinite in all directions.”
Verification is called joining dots. If my piece of string is the length of the great pyramid, I will be interested to find that x pieces of equal length go exactly round the world. It’s amazing what you can do with a piece of string: make 12 equidistant marks on it, tie both ends together, place pins at 3, 7 and 12/0: you‘ve just drawn yourself a right angle. Very useful for building houses etc.

“So all that remains is personal subjective presence, the I AM, constantly striving for objectivity.”
Yes, i.e. connecting lots of dots; building things that don’t fall down. When you’ve built your pyramid, it becomes part of your objective reality, and mine.

‘D)when seeing people going on a stage to present their perception of this vast universe I see clergymen climbing up on a pulpit, and know that what will eventually bring them all down is their vanity.’
Yes, some of their do bash their bibles rather hard, don’t they? But aren’t we all here to present our perception of this vast universe, if only backstage to present our unobtrusive presence as observers or supporters? In other words, we all stand somewhere along that stick that ultimately has no middle – and ultimately it doesn’t matter where.

Thank you for this gem of a response. I loved the image of the carp ponds at Fontainelbleau as well as the Lao-Tse quotes on paradoxes.
And you are quite right in all your responses to my A to D musings.
Just one thing about Dan Winter...I mentioned him precisely because there is a plagiarism case there, not because of my personal BS detector, which had failed me in his case.

Here is a statement made by Dan Winter as a result of the court order:

"I regret that others have been misled by my false claims, and I strongly encourage Mr. Vincent Bridges my publisher, and Drunvalo Melchizadek, a/k/a/ Bernard Perona d/b/a Flower of Life, Inc., and all others who have repeated my false and hurtful reports, to stop doing so.
I refute my misstatements and apologize for all of this, and I request that others now pass on, post, and report this Corrective Notice everywhere that false reports have appeared."

more here:

http://danwinter.com/

[araucaria]

(Response to Ulli)
Interesting quote here:


funny, we say fish swim

i think they think they are flying!

Or maybe we think that birds and insects are flying but are actually swimming. Can go either way, imo. Air seems like a lighter version of water. I’m sure we look like aliens to most sea life and we can be seen doing the very same things some claim off world aliens of doing…. like abductions. Instead of a tractor beam fishing hooks and nets are used instead. Submarines can be seen as space crafts, while scuba and deep sea divers seem to be wearing space suits too…making them appear even more alien like. lol

Peace

I see Dan Winter’s over in Europe now : http://www.danwinter.com/GermanAdvisory-English.html
We have plagiarism enough already over here. (Of course, there is also self-plagiarism: repeating the same thing over and over until it becomes the ‘truth’). If you see plagiarism as the real info part of disinfo, the disinfo part would be the hoaxes, not always malicious I might add. The ‘philosopher’ Bernard-Henri Lévy had the wind taken out of his sails some time ago by making a bona fide quotation from the work of the ‘philosopher’ Botule (as in botulism!), invented by a satirical journalist. And science has had its share of hoaxers, and red faces, too. There was also the case of the Bogdanov twins, TV presenters here (France’s answer to Hoagland I guess). They got PhDs in Physics and Maths for their work on ‘Before the Big Bang’ – some would claim they got them ‘in a lucky dip’ as we say in French (dans une pochette surprise)! I’m not sure what came of this affair. Their book was prefaced by Arkadiusz Jadcyk, who has posted stuff on his wife Laura Knight’s site sott.com – so it’s got to be rubbish, hasn’t it.

We know Hawking’s view of asking what came before the big bang: ‘it’s like asking what is north of the north pole’. Well, Stephen, if you keep heading ‘north’ past the north pole, you will experience a completely painless pole shift! In mid-stride, whether northbound from east or west – always the south – you will find you are suddenly heading in the opposite direction, due south!

The Bogdanovs’ basic point, as far I understand it, is the derivation of infinity from zero. Having nothing but zero, you can either say zero to the power zero equals… one, or that you have an empty set into which you put zero: no longer an empty set, and you can take it from there!

I am no mathematician (there again, who was described by his math teacher as a ‘lazy dog’? you got it: dear old Albert E. – we can shoehorn him into just about any discussion, can't we!) and so cannot judge. However, it sounds right to me, but only because I had already come independently to the conclusion that Pascal, who was a mathematician as well as a philospher, used some such thinking in arriving at his famous triangle. Here (TV chef’s hat on) is part of something I posted earlier (1st Feb):


On believing and knowing, and triangles

10 is a triangular number: you can stack the numbers 1- 10 to form a triangle (1, 2 3, 4 5 6, 7 8 9 10, the tetraktys). 33 is three short of a triangular number: you can form a topless triangle by starting with 1 2 3, 4 5 6 7 etc. This is the 2D equivalent of a pyramid without the capstone. Why the missing capstone? It means that when you think you are at the top of any hierarchical structure you are already at the bottom of the next one up – caught in an endless string of superiors exploiting subordinates.

This is an upside down way of doing things. There is another way.

The philosopher/mathematician Pascal’s triangle is also incomplete, only at the bottom, not the top. The apex starts with 1, 1 1, 1 2 1, and every row is generated by adding the two figures immediately above. This triangle was designed for a betting friend of Pascal’s and is a table of probabilities. It works in the real world, and provably so: the gambler’s winnings. The question is, how did Pascal construct the apex of his triangle? Clearly the 1s down both sides come from following the rule of adding the two numbers above, i.e. 1 plus nothing.

However by that same token, the 1 at the very top would have to be the sum of nothing plus nothing!
Now Pascal himself was not a betting man, except for his one famous wager: ‘God exists’. Sometimes seen as a cowardly act of faith, this wager here takes the form of posing the equation 0 + 0 = 1*. But remember, you can bank on it working because it generates all the rest! Hence what started out as a leap of faith is turned instantly into dead certainty, because as soon as he writes it down in a probability table, 1 means a 100% probability! Hence ‘God’ exists as the creator of something out of nothing. From the certainty of infinite oneness at the top, it is increasing uncertainty all the way down to infinite multiplicity at the ‘bottom’.

1, 1 1 – this is the only possible apex on the triangle or capstone on the pyramid. Understandably it sometimes goes missing… The bottomless Great Pyramid has also lost its facing stones, the 1s down the sides. Hence our journey has to be upwards (and hence outwards), unless of course you prefer the upside down pyramid symbolism and take the negative path, pretending down is up.

[…]
spirituality is the upward path, religion (as a control mechanism at least) is the downward path.


Let this be my answer to firstlook’s remark that ‘effectiveness is the measure of truth’.