Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?

[jorr lundstrom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

dog down and I will try to explain to you.

Maybye the herd contained that particular intelligent sheep.

[ulli]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Icecold]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lmao

That's a better argument than Nassim's.

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

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

The Cult of Star Trek lives on....

[K626]

Posted by Dale (here)

Posted by K626 (here)

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

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

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

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

K

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

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

Klabs

[Elixer]

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

[shiva777]

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

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

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

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

[Feren]

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

[skippy]

Posted by jorr lundstrom (here)
Oh Ice, wot a nice sheep. A man was out walking in the eastern parts of Belgium.

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

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

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

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

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

dog down and I will try to explain to you.

Maybye the herd contained that particular intelligent sheep.

Here another one:

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

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

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

[Elixer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[shiva777]

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

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

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Feren (here)
"Fraud" is moral judgement;

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

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

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

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

[CyRus]

While we are on the subject of spiritual scientists:
Take a look at this link - https://youtube.com/watch?v=-fD7P...mbedded#at=146

[Menkaure]

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

[CyRus]

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

No it's not. You see, Nassim's ideas are not wild they are wrong! He has no grasp of mathematics or physics whatsoever, and can thereby not call himself a physicist. The man claims to be on the cutting edge of physics for God's sake, yet doesn't have a clue what he is talking about!
He is a fraud because he is portraying himself as a world-class physicist, which he is not (and this has nothing to do with education by the way, there are many autodidacts out there who are brilliant!) and therefore is either deliberately misleading his audience or he is himself deluded.

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

[Connecting with Sauce]

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

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

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

[Chicodoodoo]

Posted by CyRus (here)

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

No it's not. You see, Nassim's ideas are not wild they are wrong! He has no grasp of mathematics or physics whatsoever, and can thereby not call himself a physicist. The man claims to be on the cutting edge of physics for God's sake, yet doesn't have a clue what he is talking about!

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

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

[ThePythonicCow]

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

I do not dismiss Nassim for lack of mathematical complexity.

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

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

This is absolutely, totally, mind-bogglingly absurd.

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

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

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

[Tenzin]

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

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

[Pilgrim]

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

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

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

It makes sense for me.

No government conspiracy or body can alter that fact.

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

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

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

Thanx for interesting thread:-) Cheers,P.

[Pilgrim]

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

I resonate with that one very much....

P.