Nassim Haramein

[greybeard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[araucaria]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[onawah]

David Wilcock sheds a lot of light on some of the more incomprehensible aspects of this issue in a new radio interview which I found in the article here:
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&i...f839b8a4e58a_5

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

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

If you’re on a PC, right-click and select Save As. Mac users right-click and select Save Link As.
http://divinecosmos.com/podcasts/wil...ind_110822.mp3

[greybeard]

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

[Firinn]

Posted by CyRus

... 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!

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

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

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

With love,
Firinn

[araucaria]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ulli]

@araucaria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[araucaria]

Posted by ulli (here)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some responses to your comments Ulli:

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

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

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

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

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

[firstlook]

"Effectiveness is the measure of truth."

Just something to think about.

[onawah]

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

[ulli]

Posted by firstlook (here)
"Effectiveness is the measure of truth."

Just something to think about.

Thinking, thinking....

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

[ulli]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by ulli (here)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some responses to your comments Ulli:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

more here:

http://danwinter.com/

[araucaria]

(Response to Ulli)
Interesting quote here:

Posted by Peace of Mind (here)

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
funny, we say fish swim

i think they think they are flying!

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

Peace

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

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

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

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

Posted by araucaria;117607
[…
On believing and knowing, and triangles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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