Nassim Haramein

[CyRus]

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)
Hey Cyrus,

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

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

[Unified Serenity]

Cyrus:

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

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

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

[Agape]

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

[Anno]

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

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

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

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

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

[CyRus]

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)
Cyrus:

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

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

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

Exactly, and that is but one of the fundamental flaws Haramein makes. Mass is a property of matter. Weight is the effect gravity has on mass, which is why you weigh less on the moon than on the Earth, despite your mass being the same.
Of course it is odd that Haramein states that every atom is a black hole. If this were the case, a single atom of hydrogen would devour the Earth...

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

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

My main problem with Haramein is this:

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

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

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

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

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

That's my two cents anyway.

[CyRus]

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

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

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

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

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

According to Einstein's theory of relativity (Haramein's idol), a sufficiently dense mass will deform space-time to such an extent that the gravity of this mass will be so strong that light cannot escape. In essence, this is why a black hole is called a "Black hole". Therefore, by the very definition of a black hole, it has to have a large mass! Ergo, if your heart has a black hole in the center....you can imagine how ridiculous this sounds! Haramein is not saying what he thinks, he is saying he is a scientist and what he is saying is therefore truth!

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

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

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

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

[Mark]

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

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

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

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

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

[CyRus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Agape]

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

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

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


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


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

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



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


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


Time for goodnight

[ThePythonicCow]

They said very much the same kind of thing about Einstein in the beginning of his career,

Anyone outside the norm, who gets any notice, can expect such comments.

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

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

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

• Charles' comments about a False Flag ET threat event: important new information (Post #458)
• Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage? (Post #35)

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

One quote from the first of my two posts I link above:

Well ... just think about that for a second. If just one (not to mention all) of the protons in your body had the mass of 100 billion galaxies (the known universe) then you would have collapsed into a black hole, taking me, earth, sun and the milky way galaxy with you. Heavy, dude. Pass the joint ... Or maybe you would have exploded into a Big Bang ... physics at such extremes is difficult for the best of them.

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

[ThePythonicCow]

Another post of mine on Nassim, which states my view perhaps more clearly: Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage? (Post #77).

[Mark]

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

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

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

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

[bitworm]

Posted by Rahkyt (here)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[NeoEmc2]

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

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

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

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

That statement rang a bell when I heard Nassim mention it and backing it up with mathematics. The reason it "rang a bell" was due to another lecture I've watched by a man named Robert Bell - no pun intended - titled Everything is Spiritual.

You can check out that lecture on my original post HERE.

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

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

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

Happy watching.

Peace.

[Jake]

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

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

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

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

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

[CyRus]

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

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

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

That was not an attack, it was merely an observation. Seriously, if you somehow interpreted that as an insult, something obviously hit a nerve because it was not intended as such.

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

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

[firstlook]

Cyrus,

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

Thanks.

[Jake]

Posted by CyRus (here)

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

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

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

That was not an attack, it was merely an observation. Seriously, if you somehow interpreted that as an insult, something obviously hit a nerve because it was not intended as such.

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

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

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

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

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

[Anno]

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

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

[CyRus]

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

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

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

Fair enough! =) Perhaps I haven't been frequenting the right threads.