Nassim Haramein: Fraud or Sage?

[RMorgan]

Hey Folks,

I´ve just finished reading this article. The author of the article explains very coherently that Nassim Haramein is not correct with his theories.

Personally, I was never a big fan of his work, but I´m mostly interested to see what you think about this article:

"I've said a number of times that Nassim Haramein is misleading people, and I'd like to try to make it crystal clear why.

Have a quick browse, or have a good old read... it's up to you.

I'm aiming to encourage people to think carefully about what he is telling them. I'm not out to discourage people from trying out any promising new ideas – what I want is to help people question what's out there for themselves. If they want to, of course. You may choose to disagree with my assessment of Haramein. I'm interested in your reasons if you want to share them."

Please, read the full article in this link, before replying:

http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html#s2

Cheers,

Raf.

Ps: If this article was posted before here, please, dear Mods, feel free to merge it.

[onawah]

The article was probably posted already, as this subject has been hashed and rehashed many times now.

[RMorgan]

The article was probably posted already, as this subject has been hashed and rehashed many times now.

Thanks Onawah,

So, did you take any conclusions after reading this article?

I´m interested to hear what you think about it. :)

Anyway, as I´ve said before, if this article was posted before, the mod team should feel free to merge it.

Cheers,

Raf.

[greybeard]

The article was probably posted already, as this subject has been hashed and rehashed many times now.

Thanks Onawah,

So, did you take any conclusions after reading this article?

I´m interested to hear what you think about it. :)

Anyway, as I´ve said before, if this article was posted before, the mod team should feel free to merge it.

Cheers,

Raf.

Hi RMorgan
you might want to watch this video and decide on this particular subject who is fooling the public.
Not saying Nassim is right on everything but the establishment certainly protects its own view point.
Its been posted a few times


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2_LhmSygBQ

[RMorgan]

Hi RMorgan
you might want to watch this video and decide on this particular subject who is fooling the public.
Not saying Nassim is right on everything but the establishment certainly protects its own view point.
Its been posted a few times

Hey greybeard,

Thanks for the video. I´ve already watched it.

Well, I also don´t think he´s all wrong. He´s just wrong about physics.

This is not about the establishment trying to protect itself.

Along history, there were many groundbreaking physicists, with completely out of the box ideas, who managed to get themselves accepted by the establishment. It happened because they backed up their ideas with scientific proof. Einstein is the most obvious example of it.

The article on post #1 shows very clearly, at least, that NH is wrong with his physics. You know, it´s science; in science, if you have a personal theory, you have to prove it using scientific methodology, then, if you succeed proving it, your theory is accepted.

If you read the article, you´ll know that´s not about bashing NH´s work. It´s about showing with scientific facts that he´s wrong on the most basic principles of physics.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Fundy Gemini]

My thought is that Nassim (whether right or wrong) is working from the heart and is very earnest in his passion to progress mankind. That doesn't make his science right necessarily, but do keep in mind that there is a lot of good sciene kept from public exploration using the snicker factor or intimidation tactics - so the best way to credit or discredit any science is with facts alone -

[cloud9]

I haven't read the article yet and I will but the link is from Ashayana Deane which to me has no credibility at all. The thing about why the night sky is black is a Joke! What? There's no jokes in physics?

In any case, the fact that someone is able to think out of the box and express new ideas is very valuable in my book, that's the way science and medicine have evolved, actually it's the only way!

[RMorgan]

I haven't read the article yet and I will but the link is from Ashayana Deane which to me has no credibility at all. The thing about why the night sky is black is a Joke! What? There's no jokes in physics?

In any case, the fact that someone is able to think out of the box and express new ideas is very valuable in my book, that's the way science and medicine have evolved, actually it's the only way!

Hey cloud9,

I didn´t get the part about Ashayana Deane. The link I´ve posted is from another person.

Anyway, I agree with you about out of the box thinking. However, thinking outside the box is only cool when it makes sense. There´s a thin line between out of the box thinking and bull**** thinking. ;)

The article on post #1 is very well written. It´s worth a careful read.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Bo Atkinson]

I like his flash of thought about black holes in each atom or what ever words were used. If the math connections work out, as he claimed, thats good experimental work.... Areas of less interest are for me there, but if it is replicated, good there. Also i've not been much interested in black hole theory, string theory, etc... But still dabble in relatable theories which differ in various ways. I like to hear about upbeat, flashes of inspiration, all the same. Also, there are too many other areas of relevance, my own interests differ from vids/mp3s he's recorded in.

[Leon]

If Nassim Haramein is misleading, what are your history books doing? what is your government doing?

He is showing a point aview we have not seen before... we need to support him as well as Klaus Dona

Not put him down, he is lucky to still be alive with the information he has shown us... opening our eyes a little more..

[Elandiel BernElve]

In my opinion many truthseekers are so obsessed with the Truth (as in there must be only one real Truth) they forget to acknowledge the fact that a person like Nassim Haramein, through his out of the box thinking is contributing to "The search for Truth" .
Einstein is considered a genius now because he started to think out of the box. His theory of relativity was unsurpassed back then up until now. Yet nowadays the scientific community starts to see that this theory isn't coherent and doesn't seem to explain newly discovered phenomena in the universe.
Should we dismiss Einstein as a fraud?

I think the ones who tend to point towards such a conclusion have definite arrogance issues. For they themselves probably don't have the ability to even fully grasp the theory of relativity on one side or come up with a better explanation of the physics of the universe on the other side.

Nassim Haramein, as well as Nikola Tesla, and Albert Einstein are one of the masterminds that may not have the full Truth in their works but at least cause a gigantic leap FORWARD in the understanding of our world and universe.

Nassim definately works from the heart and is crazy in his own funny way. He puts significant energy and effort in HIS search for Truth and is not reluctant to share his knowledge.
No matter the flaws in his theory. He is a genius we should cherish for his alternate points of view on our universe and he will only advance the understanding and broaden the scientific horizon.

Seriously, asking from a scientist nothing but the Truth and calling him a fraud when he makes a mistake is a demonic judgement.

I don't expect you to flawlessly build the pyramid of Gizeh on your own neither right?

[jagman]

Hello RMorgan, Thank you for posting. I have seen Nassim Haramein in a few videos and I always thought he was an interesting individual.
It is imperative IMO to question everything and everyone. I think Jefferson hit the nail on the head when he wrote " Question with boldness
even the existence of God, For if there be a God, He must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind-folded fear."

[truthseekerdan]

It happened because they backed up their ideas with scientific proof. Einstein is the most obvious example of it.



Cheers,

Raf.

Sorry, but there is no such thing as "scientific proof"... It's well known that Einstein was wrong in pretty much all his theories. Do some research before claiming anything having to do with (the so called) science.

LJThU1jDT2o

[onawah]

I have engaged in the debate about whether NH is a fraud or a genius too many times now to want to do it again, but if you are interested in my opinion and reasons for, I probably have made posts in every thread we've had about Nassim in the past few years.
He's got a definite thumbs up from me.


The article was probably posted already, as this subject has been hashed and rehashed many times now.

Thanks Onawah,

So, did you take any conclusions after reading this article?

I´m interested to hear what you think about it. :)

Anyway, as I´ve said before, if this article was posted before, the mod team should feel free to merge it.

Cheers,

Raf.

[RMorgan]

It happened because they backed up their ideas with scientific proof. Einstein is the most obvious example of it.



Cheers,

Raf.

Sorry, but there is no such thing as "scientific proof"... It's well known that Einstein was wrong in pretty much all his theories. Do some research before claiming anything having to do with (the so called) science.



Hey mate,

Of course there´s scientific proof. There are several kinds of methodologies used in science to be as sure as possible that a discovery or theory is on the right track.

There are certain conventions that must be followed, in order to call anything scientifically accurate.

You can say that everything is an illusion, and you´re possibly right about it. However, while living in this world, we must follow certain rules in every field, so we can live in society and organize knowledge and information.

A good example is math. We can´t see math. As far as I know, math doesn´t even exists outside the human mind. However, we have created numbers, to try to represent our reality in the most accurate way as possible.

In Nassim´s case, if he calls himself a physicist, he must follow at least the very basic standards and conventions for with his work. Like the above article says and shows, he was absolutely wrong in the most basic calculations. There´s no discussion about that; these are facts.

Also, if his calculations are wrong and he´s not following scientific methodologies to validate his theories, all his work will be just useless because he simply wont be able to be brought to real life! So, how useful is a super "out of the box" free energy theory, if it doesn´t work in the real world?

At any moment, I have claimed that everything have to do with science. However, you should be more thankful about science, because if we didn´t have it, we would probably be living in the stone age by now.

Look around! Your computer, your lamp, your tables and chairs, the pant on your wall, your clothes! Each of these things were created or co-created by scientists, which did real research and showed real results.

So yes. Science is good! It´s too bad that some people have taken control over most scientific establishments out there, however, without what some call "mainstream science", most of us wouldn´t probably be alive right now.

Some people just insists in demonizing "mainstream science"! That´s just hilarious! I would love to see if anyone here would hire an "alternative engineer" to build your house, an "alternative mechanic" to take care of your car, or an "alternative doctor" to operate your daughter´s appendicitis.

Cheers,

Raf.

[jagman]

Speaking of main stream science, Neil Degrasse Tyson is on Coast tonight. I have been thinking about calling in all week.
He has done some really good work on Nova, and the History channel. IMO He is the best since Carl Sagan. Sorry about
the derail BACK to TOPIC

[ThePythonicCow]

Ps: If this article was posted before here, please, dear Mods, feel free to merge it.
This article has been linked twice before, from these two 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 - Post #15 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?29268-Nassim-Haramein&p=297027&viewfull=1#post297027)

I remain as convinced now as when I wrote the post behind the first link above that Nassim is a crock of blarney ... at least so far as his "physics" goes.

[shadowstalker]

Theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Theory (disambiguation).
The English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to theory because theory involved no doing apart from itself.
A classical example of the distinction between theoretical and practical uses the discipline of medicine: Medical theory and theorizing involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.[2]
By extension of the philosophical meaning, "theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts.
In modern contexts, while theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily measurable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science.
A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses. Hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures; while theories are collections of hypotheses that are logically linked together into a coherent explanation of some aspect of reality and which have individually or jointly received some empirical support.

[000]

Hey mate,

Of course there´s scientific proof. There are several kinds of methodologies used in science to be as sure as possible that a discovery or theory is on the right track.

There are certain conventions that must be followed, in order to call anything scientifically accurate.

You can say that everything is an illusion, and you´re possibly right about it. However, while living in this world, we must follow certain rules in every field, so we can live in society and organize knowledge and information.

A good example is math. We can´t see math. As far as I know, math doesn´t even exists outside the human mind. However, we have created numbers, to try to represent our reality in the most accurate way as possible.

In Nassim´s case, if he calls himself a physicist, he must follow at least the very basic standards and conventions for with his work. Like the above article says and shows, he was absolutely wrong in the most basic calculations. There´s no discussion about that; these are facts.

Also, if his calculations are wrong and he´s not following scientific methodologies to validate his theories, all his work will be just useless because he simply wont be able to be brought to real life! So, how useful is a super "out of the box" free energy theory, if it doesn´t work in the real world?

At any moment, I have claimed that everything have to do with science. However, you should be more thankful about science, because if we didn´t have it, we would probably be living in the stone age by now.

Look around! Your computer, your lamp, your tables and chairs, the pant on your wall, your clothes! Each of these things were created or co-created by scientists, which did real research and showed real results.

So yes. Science is good! It´s too bad that some people have taken control over most scientific establishments out there, however, without what some call "mainstream science", most of us wouldn´t probably be alive right now.

Some people just insists in demonizing "mainstream science"! That´s just hilarious! I would love to see if anyone here would hire an "alternative engineer" to build your house, an "alternative mechanic" to take care of your car, or an "alternative doctor" to operate your daughter´s appendicitis.

Cheers,

Raf.

Not everything mainstream science claims to be fact actually is fact. The same goes for non-mainstream science. It is not black and white. It is not either/or. It is a continuum.

Nassim is good because he dares to experiment outside of the box. It does not matter if he is right or wrong. At least he gets people to consider something different. If his calculations are not correct, someone else will find the equations which do work, and I can guarantee that mainstream physicists do not possess all of the keys to unlocking free energy technologies because they are working with incomplete data sets. Why? Because they do not dare to think out of the boundaries prescribed to them. This is not an issue of fact or not fact, it is an issue of who is willing to take the first step to publicly breaking the membrane open.

Remember, even Gravity is still only theory. The force is indeed real but mainstream science has not yet accepted that it is a wave. Earth science is not at all perfect, neither are its methodologies. It has a very very long way to go.

If you want pragmatic science, that is just peachy keen! Go ahead and use that to build homes and cars, but if you want anti-gravity vehicles and free energy? Forget it. Only the 'crazy' ones will be able to collectively trigger the discovery of just what will make free energy technologies tick. Since that technology is already available but very hidden, yet will eventually have to come out publicly, mainstream science will have to have a lot of humility in accepting that it was not always correct about what was thought to be fact. Clandestine science likely knows how to measure things which the mainstream cannot yet measure. Just because you cannot yet measure something does not mean it doesn't exist.

Nassim is neither fraud nor sage. He is simply one of many who are attempting to make new discoveries in science. Science used to be about curiosity and discovery and that is where it shall return. Yes, science is good, but science as DOGMA is NOT good at all.

[TargeT]

Ps: If this article was posted before here, please, dear Mods, feel free to merge it.
This article has been linked twice before, from these two 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 - Post #15 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?29268-Nassim-Haramein&p=297027&viewfull=1#post297027)

I remain as convinced now as when I wrote the post behind the first link above that Nassim is a crock of blarney ... at least so far as his "physics" goes.

I remain convinced that he has the best "theory" (comparatively) as far as his "physics" goes... a black hole at the center of everything makes so much sense, ESPECIALLY in light of things we already "know", for example: archimedes principle, Gravity (the weak force / strong force) sunspots being black, etc...

[greybeard]

We now have evidence that its possible for the speed of light to be exceeded.
Not all scientists believe that yet.
At one point in time the atom was believed to be the smallest thing.
Infinity says otherwise.
Nassim has "qualified" scientists working with him.
David Sereda is much respected and yet some scientists disagree with him.
Scientists have a history of disagreeing.
There have been varying reasons for magnetic pole reversals put forth.
I like Gregg Braden on that.
A fraud is some one who knowingly deceives. I dont think that cap fits Nassiem

Chris

[Fundy Gemini]

Hey Folks,

I´ve just finished reading this article. The author of the article explains very coherently that Nassim Haramein is not correct with his theories.

Personally, I was never a big fan of his work, but I´m mostly interested to see what you think about this article:

"I've said a number of times that Nassim Haramein is misleading people, and I'd like to try to make it crystal clear why.

Have a quick browse, or have a good old read... it's up to you.

I'm aiming to encourage people to think carefully about what he is telling them. I'm not out to discourage people from trying out any promising new ideas – what I want is to help people question what's out there for themselves. If they want to, of course. You may choose to disagree with my assessment of Haramein. I'm interested in your reasons if you want to share them."

Please, read the full article in this link, before replying:

http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html#s2

Cheers,

Raf.

Ps: If this article was posted before here, please, dear Mods, feel free to merge it.


Hi Raf, as I posted above - I believe Nassim is absoloutely working from the heart and for the betterment of mankind. I do have a background in science (not physics) and could tell you a few things about the "peer review" process that all authors in scientific journals have to go through, but suffice to say it is just about as honest as politics ;)

Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that this particular blog crtique (by a science teacher named Bob or otherwise known as Bob-a-thon) has already been addressed with an equally lengthy response by Nassim at his site here: http://theresonanceproject.org/bob-a-thon
:ufo:

[greybeard]

Here is a link of peer group testimonials for Nassiem posted by onawah

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?29268-Nassim-Haramein&p=300656&viewfull=1#post300656

Chris

[Olam]

Aaahhh, this wonderful world of dualities,:p
Is he this or is he that.:biggrin1:

Nassim Haramein in neither or .
I think, he is spread way out there.
He is one that if you want to know for yourself,
there are hours and hours that need be invested in viewing the material he presents.
Also somehow !..understanding the multi layered information and how that fits in the big picture.
It was not easy stuff for me, but very revealing at some point .
If you have checked out Marko Rodin and his coil, you will understand the complexity!

Can you tell I like Nassim Haramein.?.......
:-)

[Omni connexae!]

What he does is not science, honestly.

I dunno if he's a fraud though, I think he genuinely believes his BS theories. (Bad Science)

¤=[Post Update]=¤


We now have evidence that its possible for the speed of light to be exceeded.


You mean this?

BREAKING NEWS: Error Undoes Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Results (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html)


It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all.

[truthseekerdan]

We now have evidence that its possible for the speed of light to be exceeded.
Not all scientists believe that yet.
At one point in time the atom was believed to be the smallest thing.
Infinity says otherwise.
Nassim has "qualified" scientists working with him.
David Sereda is much respected and yet some scientists disagree with him.
Scientists have a history of disagreeing.
There have been varying reasons for magnetic pole reversals put forth.
I like Gregg Braden on that.
A fraud is some one who knowingly deceives. I dont think that cap fits Nassiem

Chris

"Scientists at the world's largest physics lab said they have clocked neutrinos travelling faster than light. That's something that according to Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity -- the famous E (equals) mc2 equation -- just doesn't happen" . . .

29-immi6BU4

[truthseekerdan]

...
A good example is math. We can´t see math. As far as I know, math doesn´t even exists outside the human mind. However, we have created numbers, to try to represent our reality in the most accurate way as possible.
...

Cheers,

Raf.

Speaking of math...

vybaO0bYM0U

[Cjay]

I agree with many of Nassim's theories and I like the way he explains them. I don't claim to understand (or agree with) everything he says, nor have I ever understood or agreed with many of the theories in "conventional" physics. Yes it's absolutley true that the "establishment" protect their pet paradigms and theories using every childish dirty trick in the book.

I can't help but think of a scene in the original karate kid movie, in which Mr, Miyagi uses a glass of water to symolise a brain full of knowledge. Sometimes we must empty the brain of old knowledge before we are able to learn something new, especially if it contradicts the old knowledge.

[Omni connexae!]

"Scientists at the world's largest physics lab said they have clocked neutrinos travelling faster than light. That's something that according to Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity -- the famous E (equals) mc2 equation -- just doesn't happen"

yeeahh, it didn't happen...

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html


Yes it's absolutley true that the "establishment" protect their pet paradigms and theories using every childish dirty trick in the book.


Do you have any examples of this happening?

[Fundy Gemini]

Consider "global warming" as one example that shows politics can drive science and skew results. ..

But beyond that the fact is that a lot of sciece is bought and paid for with funding dollars (what...no cure for cancer yet???)

Also consider bias and ol' boys club attitude and you start to see the picture *

1. Bias

Among applicants, especially unsuccessful ones, allegations of bias are commonplace. They include the following.Success-breeds-success bias: successful applicants are likely to become entrenched, using their grants to produce the outputs necessary to attract further funds, while others never have the chance to get started.Insider bias: decisions are made by cliques of insiders, who think highly of and award most grants to themselves and a small group of favourites.Dominant group bias: there is discrimination against groups such as women, ethnic minorities and lower-status institutions (Peters and Ceci 1982; Wenneras and Wold 1997).Conventional approach bias: grants are much more likely to support tried-and-true approaches, while challenging, innovative or unorthodox proposals are seldom funded (Armstrong 1996, 1997; Epstein 1990; Horrobin 1990, 1996).Personal bias: administrators or referees obstruct researchers or projects that they do not like (Horrobin 1974).To these possibilities can be added 'random bias' due to incompetence of administrators or referees.
source:
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/00aur.html

[Omni connexae!]

When in doubt, consult John Baez (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) =P

[Cjay]

Yes it's absolutley true that the "establishment" protect their pet paradigms and theories using every childish dirty trick in the book.


Do you have any examples of this happening?

The Earth is flat. No, the Earth is a sphere. Heretic! Burn him.

The Earth is the centre of the Universe. The Sun and everything in the Universe revolves around the Earth. Galielo disagreed and the establishment put him under house arrest.

With the advent of the automobile, the establishment fear-mongers insisted that the human body would explode if it travelled faster than the speed of a galloping horse.

You may have heard of Ignaz Phillip Semmelweis who dared to suggest, in the mid 1800s, that doctors wash their hands between successive patients to reduce the risk of spreading infection. I use the word infection here because we understand it today, although it was many years later that bacteria were discovered. The doctors in Semmelweis' time were insulted and refused to wash their hands.

You might try to argue that the same scientific arrogance, refusal to accept new theories, etc. does not occur today. I'm afraid it does and almost every time, those who complain loudest are those who have the most to lose - money, prestige, power or just losing face.

I predict that most modern scientific knowledge and so-called "facts" will be superseded many times over in the future as we un-learn our old theories and "prove" new theories.

[Omni connexae!]

The Earth is flat. No, the Earth is a sphere. Heretic! Burn him.

The church.


The Earth is the centre of the Universe. The Sun and everything in the Universe revolves around the Earth. Galielo disagreed and the establishment put him under house arrest.

The church.


With the advent of the automobile, the establishment fear-mongers insisted that the human body would explode if it travelled faster than the speed of a galloping horse.


Source?


You may have heard of Ignaz Phillip Semmelweis who dared to suggest, in the mid 1800s, that doctors wash their hands between successive patients to reduce the risk of spreading infection. I use the word infection here because we understand it today, although it was many years later that bacteria were discovered. The doctors in Semmelweis' time were insulted and refused to wash their hands.

Did she have any evidence to suggest that this would help stop the spread of infection?

Also.. 1800s :rolleyes:


You might try to argue that the same scientific arrogance, refusal to accept new theories, etc. does not occur today. I'm afraid it does

Could you provide some evidence of this happening today please.

So we are clear: are you suggesting there is an organized conspiracy, in which the "establishment" is purposely going out of their way to stifle scientific progress in the name of profit?


I predict that most modern scientific knowledge and so-called "facts" will be superseded many times over in the future as we un-learn our old theories and "prove" new theories.

Obviously, our scientific understanding can only grow...

A good example is Newtonian physics, which has been proven to be theoretically wrong. But the solutions you get using it are close enough that there are no practical situations on earth where you would need the accuracy of the correct solution--it still works for all intents and purposes here on our planet.

[andrewgreen]

Anything that uses conventional science to to prove or disprove something is in my view suspect. A fact can only be disproved never proved. Haramein is opening peoples mind by thinking in a different way, anything that challenges convention and leads to discussion helps humanity evolve.

But of course if we just give everybody the label of conspiracy freak or crazy or fraud then we never have to consider what we thought we knew might actually be false. And the establishment get to maintain the power status quo in the process.

[The Arthen]

In my opinion many truthseekers are so obsessed with the Truth (as in there must be only one real Truth) they forget to acknowledge the fact that a person like Nassim Haramein, through his out of the box thinking is contributing to "The search for Truth" .



Bang. Right there.

[Cjay]

Could you provide some evidence of this happening today please.

So we are clear: are you suggesting there is an organized conspiracy, in which the "establishment" is purposely going out of their way to stifle scientific progress in the name of profit?

Yes!

Alternative energy (aka free energy) patents supressed in the name of national security - a convenient excuse to prevent the technology competing against the people making trillions of dollars per year from metered electricity and "fossil" fuels including petroleum, coal and gas. Meanwhile, the Military-Industrial complex make billions or trillions of dollars profit using supressed technologies while officialdom claim the technologies don't exist. Even bio-fuels have been demonised to stifle their competition against petroleum, even though bio-fuels were popular before petroleum was such big business and even though bio-fuels are much cleaner AND renewable. Can't - or won't - believe it? Watch this video.

v3CBOdgBlk8


Second example: Marijuana. The "establishment" has systematically lied and demonised marijuana for at least 75 years. They repeatedly claim that marijuana has no legitimate medicinal uses, despite more than 25,000 scientific studies worldwide that show otherwise and despite the fact the establishment hold patents on certain marijuana-based medicines which they maintain have no medical value.

Read this book - there is a $100,000 reward if you can prove it wrong.
The Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer
http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/


The pharmaceutical industry is the master of dirty tricks. Big pharma don't "do" cures because there is no repeat business in cures. Big pharma fund their own clinical testing. Big pharma bribe politicians and public servants, FDA, etc. The whole approvals process is horribly corrupt. Many illnesses can be cured by natural rememdies. Big Pharma push politicians to enact laws to prohibit natural cures yet our lawmakers and regulators allow and encourage pharmaceuticals that kill millions of people worldwide each year.


Climate change: There is big money in this conspiracy, potentially involving multiple trillions of dollars per year. Ok, this is not quite the same thing as a conspiracy to stifle new technology but it is a massive global scientific conspiracy that continues today. Of course, if supressed alternative energy patents were made freely available, this whole climate change argument would vanish in the breeze.

Jcp40a6IYdY




I predict that most modern scientific knowledge and so-called "facts" will be superseded many times over in the future as we un-learn our old theories and "prove" new theories.


Obviously, our scientific understanding can only grow...


Yes but as long as people with vested interests stifle competing technolgies or ridicule theories that are not yet publicly acknowledged and accepted by the mainstream "establishment", then the growth of our scientific understanding will be painfully slow. Ask any scientist who has tried to get funding for research in any field that goes against the flow of mainstream science.

[CyRus]

Ah, another brave crusader trying to educate on the matters of science! =) RMorgan, I have been down this road before, and was crucified. The majority of this forum prefer to believe in fairy tales rather than the truth, as is evident by the way the fawn over every new "whistleblower" without a critical thought. It is obvious that scepticality and critical thinking is severely lacking in the forum at this time, which is one of the reasons I very rarely frequent here anymore.

As I have stated before, there is undoubtedly something 'missing' in physics and I believe perhaps consciousness plays a role in this fact, but Haramein's theories are complete nonsense! If any of you feel that way inclined, one can disprove Haramein's theories like this:
.
- The crux of Haramein's theory is that there is a black hole in the centre of an atom. (Whatever the f*** that means..)
Therefore, let us examine this claim:
Firstly, for those of you unfamiliar with this term, take a look at this link: http://physics.about.com/od/astronomy/f/BlackHole.htm In layman's terms, it is an object with such an enormous mass and gravitational pull that it literally curves spacetime. (Literally, freakin' heavy!) Now let us go back to Haramein's claim that all of our atoms are black holes. Roughly calculated, there are approximately 7x10^27 atoms in the human body. (That is, 7 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.....) Reference:http://education.jlab.org/qa/mathatom_04.html Therefore, judging by Haramein's logic, our body is composed of 7 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 black holes!

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

Also, as I have stated time and time again, his 'peer reviewed' paper is a deception. It was awarded best physics paper at a computer systems conference, which is equivalent to winning "The Best Dog" at a cat conference... In addition to this, he keeps saying his paper is 'in the process of peer review'.
He has been saying this for the past 7 years!! ----> it is rubbish! No scientist gives any acknowledgement to his inane theories whatsoever, because they have ZERO scientific merit. As I have tried to explain as simply as I can, and I hope you now start to see why he, in my opinion, is a fraud.

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

[TargeT]

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

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

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




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

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

The curving of space time is based on E=MC^2 which is KNOWN TO BE FLAWED ( http:\\www.science-site.net/Flaw_in_Einstein's_Theory.htm http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/26mar_einstein/ etc..)... your entire premise is junk at this point.



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

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



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

Yeah?
One of the most common complaints about the peer review process is that it is slow, and that it typically takes several months or even several years in some fields for a submitted paper to appear in print
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review



No scientist gives any acknowledgement to his inane theories whatsoever, because they have ZERO scientific merit. As I have tried to explain as simply as I can, and I hope you now start to see why he, in my opinion, is a fraud.
yes, you definitely have "simple" covered.



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

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

[cellardoor]

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



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

[CyRus]

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



Do we curve space time? Of course we do! Our bodies have mass, all mass has gravity, gravity according to Einstein, is the effect mass has on space time. Therefore you're talking Bollocks! Do me a favour, don't preach about discernment before spewing pig **** about things you clearly don't understand. You say the quality of info on this forum is bad. Perhaps you would like it better in play school. The learning is easier there. Have fun.
Such vitriol! =) Okay, firstly, are you saying that we curve space as much as a black hole? Then explain to me why the galaxy allegedly rotates around a black hole? Since obviously, since we have 7*10^27 black holes each (7x10^27 * 7 000 000 000 = approx. 49*10^36 black holes altogether), then surely it should, if anything, revolve around us. According to Haramein at least...

[CyRus]

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

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

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




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

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

The curving of space time is based on E=MC^2 which is KNOWN TO BE FLAWED ( http:\\www.science-site.net/Flaw_in_Einstein's_Theory.htm http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/26mar_einstein/ etc..)... your entire premise is junk at this point.



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

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



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

Yeah?
One of the most common complaints about the peer review process is that it is slow, and that it typically takes several months or even several years in some fields for a submitted paper to appear in print
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review



No scientist gives any acknowledgement to his inane theories whatsoever, because they have ZERO scientific merit. As I have tried to explain as simply as I can, and I hope you now start to see why he, in my opinion, is a fraud.
yes, you definitely have "simple" covered.



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

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

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

[000]

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

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

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

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

[TargeT]

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

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

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

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

care to offer anything else or is that it?

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

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

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

[cellardoor]

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



Do we curve space time? Of course we do! Our bodies have mass, all mass has gravity, gravity according to Einstein, is the effect mass has on space time. Therefore you're talking Bollocks! Do me a favour, don't preach about discernment before spewing pig **** about things you clearly don't understand. You say the quality of info on this forum is bad. Perhaps you would like it better in play school. The learning is easier there. Have fun.
Such vitriol! =) Okay, firstly, are you saying that we curve space as much as a black hole? Then explain to me why the galaxy allegedly rotates around a black hole? Since obviously, since we have 7*10^27 black holes each (7x10^27 * 7 000 000 000 = approx. 49*10^36 black holes altogether), then surely it should, if anything, revolve around us. According to Haramein at least...

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

[Omni connexae!]

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


Cognitive bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias)

cy@

[truthseekerdan]

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


Cognitive bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias)

cy@

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


Much Love :wub:

[Omni connexae!]

An absence of a belief =/= a belief

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

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

[cellardoor]

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

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

[truthseekerdan]

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

Belief = Uncertainty

Knowing is what's important...

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?8689-Understanding-is-everything...--

[TargeT]

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

This has been known to Satanic practitioners for a while:

http://www.sevenpillarshouse.org/assets/images/content/pyramid.jpg

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

[cellardoor]

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

[ThePythonicCow]

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

...
Utter rubbish!
Agreed - 100%.

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

But his physics is utter rubbish.

[ThePythonicCow]

ALL of this is explained by SINGULARITY (oneness, aka a black hole) at the center of every "atom" (I'm not saying its the absolute truth, but I am saying it makes a lot more sense than anything else I've studied)
Yes, all things, true or false, logically follow from falsehood (sorry, that's the math logician in me speaking ... let me translate ...)

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

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

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

[ThePythonicCow]

Therefore you're talking Bollocks! Do me a favour, don't preach about discernment before spewing pig **** about things you clearly don't understand. You say the quality of info on this forum is bad. Perhaps you would like it better in play school. The learning is easier there. Have fun.
cellardoor -- it looks to me like you turned a discussion of Nassim's physics into an attack on a fellow forum member.

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

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

Such ad hominem attacks are a violation of forum guidelines.

[TargeT]

ALL of this is explained by SINGULARITY (oneness, aka a black hole) at the center of every "atom" (I'm not saying its the absolute truth, but I am saying it makes a lot more sense than anything else I've studied)
Yes, all things, true or false, logically follow from falsehood (sorry, that's the math logician in me speaking ... let me translate ...)

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

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

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


I think you may have highlighted a possible block ;)

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

This theory explains:

The sun & how it functions

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

The fact that oil is created (expanding earth theory)

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

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

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

[RMorgan]

ALL of this is explained by SINGULARITY (oneness, aka a black hole) at the center of every "atom" (I'm not saying its the absolute truth, but I am saying it makes a lot more sense than anything else I've studied)
Yes, all things, true or false, logically follow from falsehood (sorry, that's the math logician in me speaking ... let me translate ...)

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

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

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

Hey Paul,

I agree.

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

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

This kind of labeling drives me nuts sometimes.

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

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

So, what´s the point?

Cheers,

Raf.



Cheers,

Raf.

[Dennis Leahy]

... Haramein's theories are complete nonsense! If any of you feel that way inclined, one can disprove Haramein's theories like this:
...Utter rubbish!


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

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

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

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

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

[RMorgan]

... Haramein's theories are complete nonsense! If any of you feel that way inclined, one can disprove Haramein's theories like this:
...Utter rubbish!


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

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

Dennis

Hey Dennis,

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

http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html#s2

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

Cheers,

Raf.

[TargeT]

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

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

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

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

thanks :)

****edit****

Like this:


Hey Dennis,

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

http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html#s2

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

Cheers,

Raf.

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

[ThePythonicCow]

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

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

Dennis

"Can I" ... probably not :). I'll try another analogy.

Imagine someone purports to be an architect of fine houses. He has listened well to all the various things and qualities that people with wealth might want to have in their custom built house. When a potential new client sits down with our architect, the client is told they can have the house of their dreams, with everything they want ... vast open spaces, indoor pool and tennis court, and nearly zero heating and cooling bills ...

Real architects and real home builders look at the "plans" and are hard pressed to begin to explain a basic problem ... a lack of a coherent, buildable plan. There are deep and hopeless contradictions in the fragments that can seem to be made sense of, and massive missing gaps covered by hand waving.

There is "doing science" and "learning whatever is the conventional science of the day".

Whatever is the conventional science of the day is pretty much guaranteed to be the laughing stock of some dusty history book, sometime in the future.

But the way of thinking, grounded in a clear epistemology, built on clear mathematics (not gee whiz "wow - that's the same number" numerology) and well identified basic notions ... that is the way of "doing science" that is one (not the only, but one) essential way we have to understand and master the universe about us.

I am unable to read far in Nassim's "physics" ... it's like listening to a greasy used car salesman trying to explain the wonders of the engine design in the car he's trying to sell me. My best efforts at specifically debunking Nassim were in January 2011 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?11154-Charles-comments-about-a-False-Flag-ET-threat-event-important-new-information&p=100775&viewfull=1#post100775) and April 2011 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?17540-Nassim-Haramein-Fraud-or-Sage&p=189833&viewfull=1#post189833). Give those a try if you like. CyRus also took a stab at it earlier in this thread. Pay close attention to the term Planck Density.

[ThePythonicCow]

I want to know what you KNOW about this topic, please disect his theory in an inteligent way
Try the links I just posted in my answer to Dennis above. I was hopefully more "intelligent" in my dissections a year ago January and April :).

[000]

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

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

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

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

One of the key issues, however, is that since conventional physics is itself partially flawed, it can only claim something is correct or incorrect based on what is known to be true and absolute, otherwise it is only pitting theory against theory. This is something for all to keep in mind.

Nassim has certainly claimed some interesting things and I like that it gets people to think differently although I have different views. My thinking is much closer to that (although not *exactly* the same) of Walter Russell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Russell) (there is another thread on him here on Avalon). Walter was not a physicist, however, his line of thought was so far in advance of conventional science in his day. His key idea is that Consciousness is Cause and not Effect. That is ultimately what physicists will, guaranteed, discover in time. The zero-point realm of consciousness, the quantum realm, and the perceived physical realm, all in a very intricate and perfectly synchronized dance of feedback with each other. Curiosity is much more powerful than accepting something as gospel and physicists shall be lead down some very deep and serendipitous paths. They will have to face the dilemma of 'Spirit' head on eventually, it is inevitable.

Remember, before there were scientists on Earth, there were philosophers. Not all of them were wrong and not all of them were right but they thought freely and from that emerged 'science'. Earth science has a *long* way to go but then again so does all science, no matter how advanced. Infinity is quite 'long'...rather, sizeless.

[ThePythonicCow]

I can't read "blogspot" at work, can someone paste the text of that?
Dang - that's a shame you can't read that one - it's a well done article (http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html#s2).

It's also 33 KBytes long, so I hesitate to cut and paste it here (and without much labor fixing up the format, it would be difficult reading pasted here.)

Let me see if I can do something about that - hang on.

[TargeT]

Try the links I just posted in my answer to Dennis above. I was hopefully more "intelligent" in my dissections a year ago January and April :).


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

This is absolutely, totally, mind-bogglingly absurd.

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

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




I suppose I listen to these types of presentations, hear what fits with my current theory and pull that out, I understand that people are fallible and often ignore a lot of stuff like this (Einstein was wrong in MANY ways, yet still is a house hold name).

I don't think we understand black holes (singularity) well enough to make comments like you have above, now based on conventional thinking yes, I'd agree... but currently I'm of a mind set that if its "commonly known" its probably completely wrong or heavily corrupted/perverted.

You say he's speaking absurdities based on knowledge that you assume is correct, maybe I'm just biased here but I don't see what you've posted as anything significant at all, more of a disagreement on terms, perhaps the "blogspot" thing I cant currently read has more that will make it "work" for me.

so much of what he says corroborates with other things I've studied that its hard for me to shake it, maybe you should focus less on immediate disapproval and focus more on what he says that sounds correct.

Or do you also think that the sun is a "nuclear furnace" ? I'm not approaching this in a linear fashion, I'm just using pattern analysis to come to my conclusions (which may not work with physics, though I am not a complete novice there either).


Paul,
don't worry about reposting, I'll get to it at home :) Thanks

[ThePythonicCow]

I don't think we understand black holes (singularity) well enough to make comments like you have above, now based on conventional thinking yes, I'd agree... but currently I'm of a mind set that if its "commonly known" its probably completely wrong or heavily corrupted/perverted.
There is a fundamental difference between the "way of thinking" by which good math and science proceed, and "whatever is conventional scientific thought."

That way of thinking works throughout the ages, whether one is Archimedes, Newton, Maxwell, Tesla, Einstein, or LaViolette.

That way of thinking does not build "good science" on top of fundamental notions that we don't understand well enough to make comments on.

Yourself, Nassim and I agree -- conventional science, while usefully accurate in so many ways, is also deeply misguided.

Nassim hasn't a clue on the way of thinking that underlies good science (conventional or otherwise). You asked for specific examples; I gave them; you dismiss them because you think I am dismissing Nassim's work because it doesn't fit conventional science. No. I too dismiss conventional science. I am dismssing Nassim's work because it is not a proper basis for good scientific thought, of any convention.

[TargeT]

Nassim hasn't a clue on the way of thinking that underlies good science (conventional or otherwise). You asked for specific examples; I gave them; you dismiss them because you think I am dismissing Nassim's work because it doesn't fit conventional science. No. I too dismiss conventional science. I am dismssing Nassim's work because it is not a proper basis for good scientific thought, of any convention.

Ahh, ok good clarification :)

yes, he seems much more of a "philosopher" than a scientist (though maybe that's a stretch) I can agree with you here definately; I still hesitate to discount him as (and I sudder to say this) done some pretty mind boggling things intuitively (I passed my CISSP certification with out studying at all, & I do a lot of my work based on "gut feelings" (I'm an enterprise system admin, VMware architect manager etc bla bla bla) which is completely counter to the "science" based methodology that is generaly used in information technology.

[cellardoor]

Sorry wrong thread

[observer]

Few of the debunkers in this thread have any understanding of what Nassim is saying, at all.

Have those of you who are debunking this man - based on what some other debunker has written - ever listened to his basic seven and one half hour lecture all the way through?

Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2LRmDQTpro
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gTcz1-L4jc

Or, better yet, listened to the many other lectures Nassim offers on the diverse subjects he discusses in an attempt to tie it all together into one single unified field? The concepts Nassim is proposing are not a trivial matter. It takes hours of study to grasp his theories. He communicates in a well informed, concise style.

The time it takes to become a PhD in Physics requires thousands of hours of study - dare I say even hundreds of thousands of hours - least we not bother to give this brilliant critical thinker the time of day, and instead trust the words of a misinformed debunker.


Nassim is proposing an entirely new cosmology with regard to the current mainstream model.
His revolutionary ideas cannot be communicated in a simple ten minute video.
His concepts cannot be debunked in a misinformed blog thread.

If one actually takes the time, does the research, one will realize that Nassim is proposing an entirely new understanding of the mechanics involved in the universe. He uses terms such as, 'black hole' and redefines the term. When he speaks of a black hole, he is talking about a 'black whole' - with a resulting companion 'white whole', i.e. a multiverse constantly expanding and contracting upon itself at any given moment. This is an abhorrent concept to any individual invested in the current mainstream model. You have to listen to his basic lectures to grasp what he is saying.

Think about this single plaguing question:

If the universe were full of black holes at the center of every galaxy - an infinite number of galaxies with black holes at each of their centers, according to the conventional cosmological model,
And, if this universe were constantly expanding - as the conventional model is suggesting,
With an infinite number of galaxies, each having a black hole at its center, each black hole absorbing all matter in its path as the conventional model would suggest,
why then, isn't the universe contracting?

The obvious answer is our conventional understanding of a black hole is flawed.... just as Einstein's Relativity is flawed.... just as conventional physics is flawed.

To all of this useless chatter - here in this thread - I say:

keep throwing your trillions of dollars into the physics pit in Switzerland, known as CERN.
keep worshiping the conventional model and debunking anyone with a revolutionary new idea.


I'm not suggesting Nassim is right, I'm simply suggesting his theories are well worth a listen.

It's almost as if the masses don't deserve someone who is attempting to lead them to a new way of understanding.

[Update]

If those of you wishing to debunk the character of Nassim Haramein care not to watch his lectures, at least take a look at those experts in the field who have endorsed him.

This link was referenced earlier in this thread by greybeard, and originally posted in another thread by onawah:


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

I reiterate, do the research !!!

[cellardoor]

I think half the trouble is that people tend to worship at the alter of physics when the fundamental principals are clearly floored. Like Nassim says

Who is that blowing the balloon?!

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMG74RYWxIAZzjiXcUpynTSSAz4JKgQROpy7frnPIc1NCp9wYU-g

Materialism is all about observing the effects. Philosophy is about the fundamental cause. The arch is mathematics. Try to get your head round this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4eXU8VHM2g

In essence, this model supports Nassims work. What is interesting is the size of the "egg" and the dimensions of top to bottom and rotational circumference. Sounds suspiciously like a torus to me.

[Olam]

Much of what we use as reference from physics, chemistry, will have to be updated soon enough.
Key components are missing, such as stuff from, alchemy, time, sacred geometry ,chi, loosing the sense of self and becoming one with all.
:-)
They all play a part within physics, chemistry, sub-atomic particles(waves).
Comparisons are useless and unfair!

About the black holes,

we are all participating in this atomic soup that makes us and everything else.
In this soup, we swim and disappear gazillions of times a second, ...something like that
:-)
So for some time, we are wave, or ,one, or, everything at once,or nothing at all.
You could say nothing is in fact everything....lol
So those black holes, maybe they participate in all this, I have no idea.

We then go back to heavy ,claustrophobic, existing....for a little while that sometimes feels ,all the way.
cheers

[observer]

....Yourself, Nassim and I agree -- conventional science, while usefully accurate in so many ways, is also deeply misguided.

Nassim hasn't a clue on the way of thinking that underlies good science (conventional or otherwise). [....snip]

Perhaps I should expand on what I was attempting to communicate in my comment #69 , above.

Many researchers are making discoveries that are unacceptable to the mainstream.

David Icke is a classic example.

One can find debunking websites all over the internet in reference to Icke, Haramein, Alex Jones, Jordan Maxwell.... even Bill Ryan - to mention just a few.

Everything each of the above mentioned individuals has ever said in public may not be absolutely correct - as is most assuredly true with Haramein's physics, but everything each of those individuals has said has caused other individuals to think. That is my understanding of the mission of Avalon.

Haramein's style makes one think.

I would also suggest, if Haramein's work is such a failure, than why is he sharing the stage with Klaus Dona as in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LngsxULZvEM&list=WLBF8D2B8D1C1C62AB&index=60&feature=plpp_video
Does this implicate Dona in Haramein's alleged 'failed' hypothesis? Many would look at these debunking type threads and make these assumptions.

One might take note, Bill Ryan has recently (and in the past) interviewed Klaus Dona. Does this make everything that Dona, or Bill Ryan say also suspect? I think not.
Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGzc8M_dak0
They are all trying to get people to look at evidence outside of the matrix of control - each in their own unique way.

I try to apprise myself of all the diverging theories in an attempt to formulate some sort of consensus. I don't believe that consensus has yet been reached by the Mass of Humanity.

[cloud9]

I am a fan of Haramein...
I am not expert on mathematics or physics so I'll let that to the wiser but what I see or hear from him, seems to me full of "common sense" from a observational point of view, his concepts link many points that old and modern scientists don't dare to touch or study much less to integrate in their theories or math. This is what makes him unique... he sees the universe in a whole different way, the way it should be studied and understood.

It's possible his numbers are wrong, I don't know about that, but the concepts and ideas are what is most valuable, he is an observer and a thinker which is what mathematicians and physicists are not, they are so focused on making the number match that they can't see anything else.

If everything in the universe was just mathematics I really can't imagine what kind of universe we would have but I'm sure it's not this one.

There's a real need of more scientists who can work with both brain hemispheres, other wise their science will be wrong forever.

Every time I see a documentary about Egypt, they insist in the theory of slaves building the pyramids.... year after year they say the same thing and they don't want to change this idea. Well, they can keep thinking about it this way but they are never going to find the truth, not until their thinking changes.

So for me, Haramein is a free thinker and a hero in my book, just for daring to challenge all those left brained scientist who just can't see the whole picture.

[WhiteFeather]

S A G E, Love His Work.

[TargeT]

Seems to me that "conventional science" is "catching up" to Nassim:


Gravity — A New Understanding. ©Gravity might not be such a mysterious force. I suspect that when energy is converted to matter, an energy differential or energy vacuum is created proportional to the mass of the matter created. Cosmic energy from the universe rushes to the site of the conversion just as air rushes to fill an air vacuum. The resulting movement or flow of energy brings along with it those objects of less mass that are caught in its spatial region of influence. For example, when the matter for earth was created from energy, the resulting mass created an energy differential or vacuum equal to the mass of the earth.

The same is true for protons. With this in mind, all four of the forces considered to be the primary forces of nature including gravity might be different examples of the same phenomenon.

Discussion:

Physicists consider gravity to be one of primary forces of nature. The term “force” used for these characteristics of nature, like the term “energy” is not well explained by science. It seems we observe the affects of force but not the force itself. Physicists have apparently detected and identified particles associated with all of the forces of nature except gravity. Physicists predict the detection of a “graviton” particle for gravity but so far no particle has been discovered. Scientists suspect the particle is illusive because gravity is nature's weakest force. I think this is probably not the case. In fact, I doubt that a particle of matter is responsible for any force of nature.

Many scientists believe as Einstein suggested that gravity results from a curvature in space-time. They like to use the illustration of the ball in the sheet which distorts the sheet (representing space-time) so other objects roll around the central object (ball). My view is different. Gravity causes the curvature in space-time and is not the result of it. Gravity, in this case, is cosmic energy moving toward an energy differential or vacuum initially caused by the conversion of energy into matter.

The nature of gravity can be explained and understood to some extent by other physical phenomena observed in nature. For example, if you watch what happens when a vacuum cleaner gets close to a dust bunny, the observed behavior simulates gravity. The power of the vacuum cleaner seems to reach out, grab the dust bunny and “pull” the dust bunny toward it. We, of course, know that this is not the case. The vacuum cleaner causes a local pressure differential or vacuum. The surrounding air following the laws of physics rushes to fill the vacuum and carries the dust bunny in its path into the vacuum cleaner.

So, how is gravity like the vacuum cleaner and the dust bunny? I think it might work like this.
The universe is made of energy. Everything in it is energy in one form or another. Matter is made of energy and results from energy conversion by E=MC². We can see from Einstein's famous equation that it takes an enormous amount of energy to create matter. I suspect that when energy is converted to matter, an energy differential or energy vacuum is created proportional to the mass of the matter created. Dark, non-visible cosmic energy from the universe rushes to the site of the conversion just as air rushes to fill an air vacuum. The resulting movement flow of energy brings along with it those objects of lesser mass that are caught in its spatial region of influence. Although each particle or particle cluster of matter attracts cosmic energy in this way, lesser mass is always pushed toward larger mass. In our case, being in the Milky Way Galaxy, we are all being pushed toward the largest mass which is the black hole in the center of the galaxy. Space, as discussed here, is not “nothingness”. It is a medium through which energy can be transferred or propagate. As it rushes to sites of energy vacuums like matter, it holds objects in place. It clings to the mass and becomes denser in the process. Cosmic energy accelerates objects of mass toward the earth at 32 feet per second/per second. This is known as the acceleration of gravity. The fact that objects of all sizes fall to earth at the same acceleration is simply because the medium carrying them is moving them at a constant acceleration. Their size is not material to the process. Acceleration of gravity on another planet is different from that on earth depending on the difference in mass which in turn is the difference in the amount of energy needed to create it. Using this example, a black hole is nature's largest vacuum cleaner. It has the mass to create the largest energy differential with the surrounding space. In fact, if we compare the shape of galaxies to those of hurricanes the similarities suggest that they both result from energy differentials. The hurricane is caused by the air pressure differential and the galaxy might be caused by the cosmic energy differential of a black hole.



http://allensjournal.com/

http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/f/quantumgravity.htm

I've dug through this topic over and over, watched the 7 hour presentation a few times and read Nassim's papers, I do not see anything that discounts his work other than people being uncomfortable with him for some (usually a logical fallacy) reason.

[Moz]

Dear All,

This is my first time here so please don't be too hard...

Looking at the first proof presented named "a. The force between protons" on the web page http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html#s2 the conclusion is clear: they state that the forces between protons is 7.49 x 10^47 dynes. I did not get if they are only repelling or also attractive (but I suspect that its a repelling force). This is wrong when compared to simple experimentation.
The force needed for a proton to be ejected is way....WAY below the given value. And if this theory predicts this force to be attractive then it would be almost impossible to remove a proton from an atom...and this is also not true (in this current reality).

Thinking (I believe) is a good thing but the graveyard of incorrect scientific theories is enormous...and any other field of human experience is just as full of dead theories and hypothesis.

To me Mr. Haramein is a brave researcher that is working in an area that is very complicated.
In science (but not only in science) theories have to be tested in our current "reality" ....and that's when most theories die.

There is no (to me) conflict with thinking in/out/on the edge of the box with exploring science.
Let the man work and he will raise or fail by his own merit...but things have to be tried and tested

A hug to all,
Moz