Nassim Haramein at Project Camelots Awake & Aware Conference September 2011

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Ilie Pandia (here)
I really don't get his need to "peer approval" at any cost...

He gets a larger audience this way. A larger number of people, while sensing more spiritual matters in their intuitive minds, would like it validated to their verbal, rational minds as "real physics, peer reviewed science, physical reality." His way of presenting his results allows many potential listeners to reassure their rational minds with the appearance of real good, ground breaking, physics, while delivering to their intuitive minds a message they resonate with.

The set of people such as myself, who find his so called physics to be dramatically unsound, is a much smaller potential audience.

[Ilie Pandia]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Ilie Pandia (here)
I really don't get his need to "peer approval" at any cost...

He gets a larger audience this way. A larger number of people, while sensing more spiritual matters in their intuitive minds, would like it validated to their verbal, rational minds as "real physics, peer reviewed science, physical reality." His way of presenting his results allows many potential listeners to reassure their rational minds with the appearance of real good, ground breaking, physics, while delivering to their intuitive minds a message they resonate with.

The set of people such as myself, who find his so called physics to be dramatically unsound, is a much smaller potential audience.

Well... this could very well be so. And if it is, then it's too bad, because these tricks are not compatible with his higher spiritual message of "oneness".

[Mad Hatter]

Well thanks to all who pointed me in the direction of the thread regarding the discussion on Mr Harameins bona fides pertaining to proof his literarature has been legitimately peer reviewed.

After reading all 73 posts I'm still none the wiser in terms of evidence. Silly me for expecting to find, somewhere, a direct link to the peer reviewed paper(s) published in a journal acknowledged for covering such subject matter. Such a simple way of putting the matter to bed, so to speak.

So my original query, post # 7 still stands, why would he do such a thing? Albeit Paul has gone some way to shedding light on that above. I understand that running a research foundation may not come cheap, but Illie has a point in that tricks of this nature are not compatible with a higher spiritual message...so what is the Karmic price for bulsh!ting??

[onawah]

When I get time, I will go back and drag up the evidence about the peer review that shows it was actually very profound recognition from a lot of extremely respected people in the field. His paper was in competition with papers written by experts who had been in the field for a long time and that were expected to win, but Nassim's paper won because it was agreed to be the best one there.
Although it sounds like the people who have made up their minds are going to be quite indifferent to anything anyone might say in favor of Nassim's work.
Which is fine. I think it's just a matter of resonance. You will resonate to information that speaks to whatever space you are in. Nassim's information speaks profoundly to the space that a lot of people are in, but not everyone.
That's as it should be, I would say. No point in getting in a dither about it.

I would think it would be perfectly obvious why peer recognition is important to any physicist. They need it continue to get financial support so they can continue to work in their chosen field. In Nassim's case, he also has a wife and two young children to support.

[Ilie Pandia]

Onawah, it's a dare!! I've done that last year to put this to rest. And I did not like what I've found.

Here is were I've tried to defend Nassim's "scientific paper" and lost https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...-Fraud-or-Sage

Enjoy!

PS: And here is direct link to Nassim's "published work" in the "American Institute of Physics": AIP Conference Proceedings Volume 1303. Open the page and search for "Nassim" and sure enough his paper is there. Now also go ahead and read the first few pages of the above thread to see why I lost the debate

PS2: The final blow:

Haramein's "physics" paper was not judged by the American Institute of Physics. It's not been accepted by a scientific journal – far from it. It was published by AIP as part of a conference proceedings, which is nothing more than a record of what happened at a conference.

As you can see on the AIP conference proceedings site, they will happily publish the proceedings of any conference with a science or engineering theme. The only review their publications team carry out is an editorial one.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by onawah (here)
Although it sounds like the people who have made up their minds are going to be quite indifferent to anything anyone might say in favor of Nassim's work.

I made up my mind by listening to a video of Nassim's, by reading some of his work, by reading some critique's of his work, and by doing my own thinking, as I reported in this post. Please, pay especially close attention to Nassim's use of Planck Density. In my view, it's insanity to the infinite degree. Since that post (January 2011) I have occasionally listened to or read more of Nassim ... my conclusions stand.

His recent proclamation that his theory had calculated the number of particles in the Universe for the first time ... and his amazement over that result, as if it provided another validation of his work, is just his profound confusion of each proton with the entire Universe, as reflected in his earlier abuse of Planck Density, inverted.

P.S. -- See also my post of April 2, 2011.

[Flash]

The video is found on camelot site and we have to pay for it if I am not mistaken, is this it?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Flash (here)
The video is found on camelot site and we have to pay for it if I am not mistaken, is this it?

Yes - if you are referring to the video that was initially posted in Post #1 of this thread. That video was copyright material of (I presume) Project Camelot, and the link to it was removed, with this note left behind in Post #1 "[admin-edit] video removed due to copyright issues.".

If you are referring to some other link above to material that should not be made freely available ... let us know ... so we can tend to that matter as well.

Thanks!

[onawah]

I don't feel a need to rehash this subject yet again, so I have just re-posted the following, which is from the thread at:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...assim-Haramein
I have just taken some relevant highlights from that thread, which to my mind, quite adequately demonstrate Haramein's authenticity and well earned respect from his peers.
I would just add that I would think it would be quite obvious that a physicist would want to have peer review, as it helps in getting funding so that work can continue in the chosen field. Haramein also has a wife and two young children to support, and a non-profit, The Resonance Project, which requires funding.
Here are some testimonials for Nassim Haramein 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.”
**************************************************************************************************** *************************************************
The following are excerts from Nassim's response to a critic who called himself “Bob-a-thon” (bold letters are the OP's emphasis).
Please note especially the first section in bold letters regarding the CASYS'09 Conference, where his paper won the prize. This section should make it very clear it was not “just a conference about computers”. It also demonstrates the importance of the paper's conclusions.
http://theresonanceproject.org/bob-a-thon
In his point #1, the first and second paragraph clearly attempt to discredit the validity of the CASYS’09 Conference because of the gentleman’s unfamiliarity with this event and insinuates that the postings on my website mislead people to believe that it was an award given for all of physics where it is made clear that the award was given to The Schwarzschild Proton paper for the section of the CASYS’09 Conference in the field of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation” which took place at the University of Liege in Belgium. http://www2.ulg.ac.be/mathgen/CHAOS/
Furthermore, it is clear that the gentleman didn’t take the time to go and investigate the program timetable to examine the other papers that my paper was competing against as he didn’t seem to know how many were submitted in this particular section. The gentleman is correct in asserting that not so many papers would be found there (approximately 20) as not many people in this world have either the capacity to work at this level, or the leisure to find the time to do in depth investigation of extremely difficult problems that were found insurmountable by some of the greatest thinkers in our history.
The papers that were submitted this year were of very high quality from researchers from a wide international community and very reputable institutions. This is nothing unusual for the CASYS Conference physics section, as previous years have seen Nobel Prize Laureates participate, such as in CASYS’07 where I presented as well. As such, I was quite surprised to find my paper winning the Best Paper Award as it was competing against veteran physicists and researchers, including papers from the director of the conference himself. How much did the selection committee know about physics? I don’t know. However, the quality of the physics papers that have been submitted certainly demands that the reviewers have some fairly advanced understanding of physics to be able to even comprehend any of it. It wasn’t the Nobel Prize, however, I wonder how many prizes the gentleman has won in physics?
In point #2, the gentleman suggests that my Schwarzschild Proton paper has no merit as such, and supports his argument using three comments. I will address them one by one (for a complete rebuttal of his technical criticisms of the Schwarzschild proton, read http://theresonanceproject.org/schwa...oton-manifesto).
a) “His overall argument is circular”
This assertion is quite remarkable as The Schwarzschild Proton, while proposing a unification view, attempts to resolve a very significant circular argument found in the standard model. Almost a century ago, when it was determined that there seemed to be a highly charged nucleon at the center of atoms that contained most of their mass and that this entity was composed of particles that somehow must have been held together against their electrostatic charge (Coulomb repulsion), the scientific community at large adopted the concept of some mysterious strong force plucked out of thin air that happened to be in the correct proportion to produce a confinement necessary for proton to proton interaction. Later on it was found that the proton seemed to have internal structures called quarks and since those are confined in an even much smaller space, the color force was elaborated and made to be infinitely strong. Now the strong force at the proton scale was said to be only a remnant of the all-powerful color force of infinite nature mediated by gluons. Nowhere in the standard model is there given an argument for the source of energy that would be necessary to produce a force of infinite nature –that is, the strongest force in the Universe.
Ironically, this is a perfect example of circular thinking. One finds an error in his or her current physical model that doesn’t agree with experiment or observation, then proceeds to invent a new kind of force or even a new kind of matter (in the case of the dark matter/dark energy allegories, see below) then gives this new invention exactly the characteristics necessary to make the initial model work. Then the researcher asserts that the new quantity is confirmed, since it is predicted by the initial model which otherwise fails.
In order for the argument of the standard model to not be circular, a mechanism for the production of an infinite confining force would have had to be given, and this is exactly what The Schwarzschild Proton does. It does so by postulating a certain amount of coherent and polarized structure in the available vacuum fluctuations present at the quantum scale (known to produce foam-like structures in the spacetime manifold, according to the standard model) and contributing to high curvature near or at the horizon. This is not addressed or elaborated on in The Schwarzschild Proton paper, although it is better referenced in the final copy for publication which is not available on the internet yet. However, my earlier papers Collective Coherent Oscillation Plasma Modes In Surrounding Media of Black Holes and Vacuum Structure – Quantum Processes with Considerations of Spacetime Torque and Coriolis Forces and Spinors, Twistors, Quaternions, and the “Spacetime” Torus Topology treated this very issue and showed that soliton-like structures and acoustic plasma solutions found in the neighborhood of horizons demand a certain amount of coherent structure in the vacuum at the quantum level. Therefore, the Schwarzschild paper is not a stand-alone paper, but a continuation of investigation of a certain approach to the structure of spacetime which involves distortions due to torque and Coriolis effect which may produce discreteness at the quantum level resolving the division between the relativistic world and the quantum world. This approach has been successful in predicting many astrophysical phenomenons, including the existence of black holes prior to galactic formation (http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2009/bhbulge/). The following quote is one example from The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein’s Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.
“In this section we have shown that we can modify Einstein’s field equations and the Kerr-Newman solution in order to accommodate torque and the Coriolis forces, which we term the Haramein-Rauscher solution. Since Einstein’s field equations obey the Laplace-Poisson condition, the torquing of spacetime may be the result of the vacuum gradient density in the presence of matter-energy. Modification of the field equations makes it possible to include the torque terms and hence generate more realistic solutions. These solutions more comprehensively describe the dynamical rotational structures of galaxies, novae, supernovae, and other astrophysical structures which in this case are driven by a spacetime torque. Hence, with the inclusion of torque and Coriolis effects in Einstein’s field equations, the spacetime manifold correlates well with the observable mechanisms of black holes, galactic topology, supernova formation, stellar plasma dynamics and planetary science such as ring formation and the Coriolis structure of atmospheric dynamics. This may lead to a model where the driving torque and the dynamical Coriolis forces of the spacetime manifold topology are responsible for the observed early formation of mature spiral galaxies . Further, our model is consistent with galactic structures, the super-massive black hole at their centers, as well as polar jets, accretion disks, spiral arms and galactic halo formations.”
The impetus for the Schwarzschild Proton paper was merely to show that when a proton is treated as a mini black hole, its interactive behavior actually predicts well (considering a first order approximation since a full tensor analysis would need to be included using the Kerr-Newman metric and eventually the Haramein-Rauscher solution) the gamma emission, the interaction time and the so-called “anomalous magnetic moment” of the proton – which now has been given a source through the polarized vacuum structure.
b) “The nucleus of a single atom of hydrogen has a mass of nearly a billion tons.”
As the gentleman points out, this may be a silly thing to predict. Obviously, I thought of modifying G and the Planck’s scale so that the Schwarzschild Proton mass would come out to the standard value (as others have done http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701006), however my point in this paper is actually to show (and this is why I added a scaling graph) that objects in the Universe from universal size to subatomic particles tend towards the Schwarzschild condition as demonstrated by the scaling graph in the paper. It was clear to me when I first made the calculation that this would be an issue, and this is exactly why I included a graph based on observational data of the mass of objects in the Universe from universal size to quasars, galactic structures, stellar size objects and so on to see if the Schwarzschild proton mass had any merit whatsoever. Since the initial calculation I have made with the collaboration of Dr. Hyson, we have made many graphs, attempting to find a way to show the standard proton mass to be related to the rest of the objects in the Universe including the Planck’s mass. But in every case, whether it is the log of the mass versus the log of the surface area or the log of the mass versus surface volume ratio, or mass versus entropy (surface), the Schwarzschild condition proton falls nicely on the trend line (in some cases where we have a multitude of objects from Universal size to quasars, large galactic clusters, local superclusters and so on), while the standard model proton always falls completely off the trend line. Therefore, the mass versus radius graph reveals a hidden and profound meaning; that is, that organized matter in the Universe seems to scale in terms of its density towards the black hole condition.
The gentleman asked “why we never measure this huge mass when we weigh hydrogen (or anything else)”. First of all, here the gentleman makes a common error in his language (and I will assume it is not an error in his understanding of physics), as mass and weight are two different animals (http://www.hitxp.com/phy/cph/020902.htm). More importantly, the issue lies in the fact that so far the standard model has been unable to identify a source for the mass of objects, such as the mass of particles, as the concept of mass is a fairly esoteric concept. The best model so far from the mainstream is the Higgs mechanism which has encountered serious obstacles. Read the Higgs mass under Hierarchy problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarc...The_Higgs_Mass. Here the standard model is experiencing issues in predictions that conservatively include some 11 orders of magnitude for unification. There are fundamental issues with the standard model’s understanding of mass and energy, although these issues are not commonly acknowledged. The scaling graph in The Schwarzschild Proton paper is much more than a statement about only the proton entity; it is also a statement of relationships in scales defining horizons as a quantization of spacetime.
One of the best examples is the so-called bare mass or bare field in quantum field theory. This issue has been so buried that many physicists are completely unaware of it, and the issue does not even appear as an entry in Wikipedia as very little literature can be found on it. However, the problem is extremely significant, that is, that even the standard model does not come anywhere close to predicting the mass of an atom that has been “measured” in experimental studies. In fact, when the standard model does an analysis of an electron entity, it finds that this entity must have infinite mass and infinite charge indeed. The approach of the standard model has been to ignore these results and use a renormalization term typically denoted as Z-1 to make the theory agree with experimental studies http://universe-review.ca/R15-12-QFT.htm#Green. This is an enormous fudge factor and in this article discussing it http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/.../msg01081.html and quoting reputable physicists, the gentleman’s conclusions are quite telling:
“…a bare electron charge and mass is infinite.. something not even Wilson Renormalization Group can get rid of. So I just wonder what is the source of the bare electron infinite charge and mass. What do you think? Initially I think it’s something akin to black hole singurality but in reality it may involve more exotic physics.”
In one way the Schwarzschild proton elucidates the fact that the energy potential necessary for confinement must be accounted for and in the final copy of The Schwarzschild Proton (not available on the net yet as it is in the publishing process) we calculate the mass dilation resulting from a proton rotating near relativistic speeds and find that at a velocity of 10^-39 slower than C, the proton exhibits the mass of a Schwarzschild entity. From there, I am planning on addressing the mass issue directly in an upcoming paper, showing that the solution to the Schwarzschild proton, which was only a first order approximation as mentioned above, should be eventually addressed in a Kerr-Newman and more importantly in a Haramein-Rauscher metric, where torque and Coriolis effects are accounted for. These effects may show that the distortion of the metrical space at the surface event horizon of the black hole structure produces turbulence and high curvature that may not be detectable from a simple long-range mass spectrometer or scattering experiments, which do not examine the highly curved structure near and at the horizon. In this case the black hole has hairs due to Coriolis effects on the structure of spacetime (Others have come to similar conclusions from completely different approaches http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9201059v1, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9604134v2, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9609084v1, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9202014v1), and it is in that fashion that I am planning on explaining the reason why the current so-called rest mass of the proton is so far off the Schwarzschild condition and the apparent trend of other organized matter in our Universe.
On the cosmological level, this highly turbulent structure of horizons where velocities approach C may be the source of matter creation through sheering of the spacetime manifold itself at the quantum level which predicts a continuous matter creation model at black hole horizons instead of the current Big Bang approach with its dark matter/dark energy allegories http://cosmologystatement.org/. Recent findings http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...te-conception/ not only confirm the existence of black holes prior to galactic formation but as well may eventually confirm matter creation processes near and at horizons, as in a continuous creation model, instead of the conventional accretion of particles and dust, the source of which has not been identified by the standard Big Bang model http://cosmologystatement.org
c) “The paper, while using some scientific terms, is presented at a very basic level…Nassim is merely playing with equations from student textbooks”
To this assertion I believe once again that Einstein said it most eloquently, “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” The Schwarzschild Proton paper could have been much more complex, as I had, with the collaboration of Dr. Rauscher and some discussions I’ve had with Dr. Rowlands :: http://theresonanceproject.org/uni/peter_rowlands.html, found multiple ways to go about it. For instance, in 2003 Dr. Rauscher and I elaborated a solution that comes to almost the same conclusions as the Schwarzschild Proton using QCD and QED. Further, Dr. Rowlands’ rewrite system (http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/6544.html) predicts as well singularity-like structures at the atomic scale.
The initial first drafts of the Schwarzschild Proton included many of these more advanced complexities; however my critics had already commented that my earlier papers were complex and too convoluted to make clear my approach. Furthermore, it was important to me for the Schwarzschild proton to be as clear and simple as possible, so that even a college level student could understand the mathematics and follow the logic to its conclusions. There was a certain beauty about this simplicity, and I purposefully stripped any complexities I could, and at the end of the day I may have gone a little bit too far with that idea. What I mean by that is that I could have put a little more beef around the arguments necessary for the reader to understand the approach I am taking and it is important to note that the current available version on the Internet was a draft copy that was not meant for publication. It was produced barely on time for the deadline for the CASYS conference while in the middle of touring during the summer of 2009. The paper will soon be updated as it is undergoing peer review and it was already asked of me to provide better references and to beef up certain sections.
One of the reasons the CASYS group thought of the merit of my paper to be worthy of an award is mostly likely because of my ongoing relationship with this group which has been following the development of my approach throughout the years and they could see the Schwarzschild Proton paper in the context of the other papers I have published.
In point #3, we find a more serious assertion about my alleged fraudulent nature. The gentleman proceeds to comment on an obscure and private discussion between myself and another researcher, Marko Rodin which is actually an illegal video as it was never approved for publication. Nowhere in any text or in any multimedia material do I ascertain the accuracy or the validity of this anecdotal discovery I was considering some years ago. If the accuracy of the relationship between the phi curve and the ninth division of a circle structure defined by Mr. Rodin’s mathematics had been fully explored and turned out to be valid, it would be interesting and I would have certainly proceeded in publishing or discussing it in public and so on. However, I did no such thing since I knew very well that the confirmation of the mathematics had not been done and since my interest has been fairly low and my time extremely busy, I had not been able to complete the proof. I actually made that quite clear in an email to a group of researchers in various fields that were inquiring about the approach I took to produce the spiral. A debate flared up and I had to immediately intervene as I was privy to the situation. My email to the group, sent on September 26, 2009, is as follows:
Dear Folks,
I am sorry if I inadvertently contributed to some confusion! I do not have the time to render the math for what I’ve done but the jepg’s and gif animation I created are self explanatory. It is important to realize that when I did this some 5 years ago I mentioned it to Marko in an anecdotal but interesting way. I did not do a full mathematical analysis. If someone is interested I would love to see it as there may be a deeper meaning to it or not.
So thank you again, Dr. Bob-a-thon, for having elucidated this calculation. However I’d like to add that as a first order approximation my finding was approximately 10% off, and a proper analysis would look at the relationship to the Fibonacci sequence, which approximates phi, as is found in nature, where is not found in nature as an exact representation. I’d love to hear the gentleman’s thoughts, as he may want to contribute more than criticism and character assassination. Whatever the case may be, to discredit all of my work because I may have had a thought in a private conversation with another researcher that may have been inaccurate or incomplete is inappropriate. In general, I attempt to find everything I can find on the matter before I make public statements that would mislead the population. Having that said, I am sure in the prolific amount of subjects I have studied, that extends from advanced physics to ancient civilization and anthropology, that I have most likely made errors that were not purposefully attempting to deceive. Many errors have been found in the body of work of some of the most prominent physicists and scientists on the planet which does not necessarily discredit their contribution to humanity as a whole. Furthermore, many things that are taught in universities today may be found to be completely incorrect tomorrow and that certainly wouldn’t make all the teachers purposefully attempting to deceive the students (although there is a certain tendency in many educators to skip over some of the difficulties that current theories may have in order to maintain an appearance of absolute truth).
In point #4: A question. How is it that there is absolutely no support from any part of the scientific community for any of Nassim’s ideas, talks, or research?
Once again, the gentleman jumps to conclusions without having all the facts. Here are a few endorsements from prominent scientists (http://theresonanceproject.org/testimonials) who think that my approach has merit and that throughout the years have been collaborating and contributing to my knowledge base. Furthermore, as I provided links above (and there are more not provided here), other researchers with serious credentials are quickly coming to the same conclusions I have regarding the singular nature of the atomic world.
a) “because the scientific establishment are afraid of having all their precious theories overturned?”
To that statement, all I can say is that history speaks for itself as any new significant changes that were brought to the scientific community were typically largely resisted, ridiculed and then eventually accepted. As Schopenhauer said, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” I would like to propose here that there is a movement, which I believe is unstoppable, that will eventually come to conclude that early interpretations of the quantum world were the result of the misunderstanding of the singular nature of atomic nuclei.
This change may take time and the period is directly related to the resistance of the current paradigm to this fundamental change in our view of the Universe. It is not a trivial change, and it is absolutely normal that there is great resistance as the current theories have done an excellent job for a long time. However, we have reached a moment where some of the fundamental issues such as the origin of mass, electromagnetism, spin, and certainly unification, etc. must be addressed.
As for the assertion from the gentleman that mentioned the typical argumentative and unfriendly nature of the scientific community, I believe that these attitudes are one of the most detrimental components to human evolution and transcendence of some of our most tremendous challenges. The scientific community, and certainly the world as a whole, must eventually come to learn that collaboration and constructive criticism always produce a better outcome for everyone than competition and warring, whether as name-calling or literally.
b) “because scientists are incapable of seeing outside the box that they were trained to think in, and are too proud to accept radical suggestion from an outsider?”
(c) because they haven’t come across his ideas yet?
(d) because anyone with an understanding of science can see that his claims and his methods are not scientific in any sense of the term, and that he doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about?
b), c) and d) are addressed by the answers above. However the gentleman mentions Garrett Lisi as an example of a renegade physicist being accepted by the mainstream scientific community. To this I would reply that Mr. Lisi published a set of equations that very much complements the current approach and as such, it is not a radical change in the perspective of the particle world – (although Mr. Lisi’s theory I believe has furthered a specific approach to particle physics, it has of lately been found to have some serious issues http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658). What’s interesting, however, is that once again it is some independent person, in this case a surfer dude living in a van (as I did for many years in order to finance my research) who came to advance the thinking of millions of professional scientists who get, in general, good salaries and can dedicate most of their time to research instead of survival. What does that tell us about the educational system and the current approach to advanced research?
In the case of someone bringing forth ideas that are much more radical, I would like to add this quote from this Associated Press article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7536665/...ience-science/
Less tolerance for renegades?
“…Maybe there is an Einstein out there today,” said Columbia University physicist Brian Greene, “but it would be a lot harder for him to be heard.” Especially considering what Einstein was proposing.
“The actual fabric of space and time curving? My God, what an idea!” Greene said at a recent gathering at the Aspen Institute. “It takes a certain type of person who will bang his head against the wall because you believe you’ll find the solution.”
Perhaps the best examples are the five scientific papers Einstein wrote in his “miracle year” of 1905. These “thought experiments” were pages of calculations signed and submitted to the prestigious journal Annalen der Physik by a virtual unknown. There were no footnotes or citations.
What might happen to such a submission today?
“We all get papers like those in the mail,” Greene said. “We put them in the crank file.”
Furthermore, comments are made below the gentleman’s article criticizing the fact that I have set up various programs and sales in a nonprofit foundation and that these activities are not typical of scientific researchers. Well, in order to eventually get out of my van and be able to continue doing advanced research, not only in theoretical physics but as well in technological developments, it was necessary for me to reach out for public support since I receive no financial support from large institutions or governmental structures. Therefore, I have had to divide my time between running an organization to produce resources necessary for ongoing research, the research itself and, of course, my family responsibilities. This has been most challenging and certainly has not put me in a position of great wealth to this day. The foundation struggles every month to make ends meet (especially in this economy), and my family is barely able to receive the financial support it needs.
Point #5. A similar question. How is it that none of his radical historical ideas have any support from any academic institutions either?
Most of the points given in #5 are also addressed above. This section is where the gentleman proclaims himself and his institution the beholder of the truth and the only truth as if the standard model was a complete and done deal. In the discussion below, confusion occurs because statements are made proclaiming that I encouraged acquaintances to learn specific math skills so that they may help. This does not mean that I don’t understand math or that my math skills are not good enough to do what I do. As mentioned in those comments, I am the first one to admit that I wish my mathematical capacity was much higher, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not good enough to do what I do with some of the help of others. Most physics projects today involve multiple physicists helping each other with various skills. I do understand enough math to write the papers I have written with the help of other researchers, however my extreme dyslexia has been a handicap for most of my life and as such this struggle is not so unusual in the scientific community as Einstein encountered it himself. I do encourage people that want to contribute to the research to learn the math skills necessary to understand the previous work that has been published and to be able to contribute useful and accurate suggestions.
Thereafter there is some discussion about how my work should be classified. There is no doubt that my work in the field of physics belongs in the box of physics and nowhere else. However, the whole of my research does not belong in any of the boxes available in the current mainstream community as it touches areas from advanced physics to philosophy and spiritual concepts and, as such, will never be placed in any conventional box as it is an all-encompassing holistic approach to existence – and nothing less. The gentleman is quite welcome to disagree with this unusual approach to science and philosophy; however, I would suggest in the future not only that his comments remain professionally based but even that his criticism be constructive and collaborative in nature as I can see that the gentleman has a great mind and a good knowledge base. Once again, we live at a critical time in history where we need to learn to collaborate and contribute to each other with mutual respect, no matter how widely divergent our opinions may be, in order to overcome many of the challenges we are facing today.
Absolute certainty that an idea is wrong…is an attitude that has no place in science and one that discredits the scientific enterprise. – Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate
NassimHaramein
Research Director
The Resonance Project

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

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

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

[onawah]

continued
and Rahkyt
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.

And Agape:
commenting on this post:
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. "

Agape's comments:
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 principal rules each of the suggested theories arrives at its own limits sooner or later.

[ThePythonicCow]

I will confess to not reading your last two posts, the long ones, just above, onawah. So if you did write anything new in these two posts ... I missed it.

Linking to prior posts (especially long ones), along with an update or summary connecting to the present thread, probably gets more readers.

I agree, onawah, that one can pile up a substantial number of words in support of Nassim. He has created enough commentary, pro and con, to make that easy.

I don't agree that counting words written pro versus con helps much to decide the value of Nassim's physics.

One actually has to think about and understand the physics (or, as cynics such as myself would say, the "so-called physics" .)

[onawah]

Not much point in discussing this any further, then, I would say, if you will not even read what I was challenged to provide.
You assume that volume is all I was aiming for.
Which is not the case.
The quality of what was posted in the original thread was so high, in my opinion, no additional research was needed.
Even if you just read the bold letters.
I just took out the best parts from the other thread, which died a natural death due to lack of any more comments from the debunkers.

"So-called physics" is an expression that can be used to describe either argument.
When we have free energy devices based on Nassim's "so-called physics", then I imagine these debates will be viewed as irrelevant by all as much as I consider them to be now.

It's as Rahkyt stated, who is ABD in a PhD program, "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. "

and Agape:

"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 versions of the 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 for a few principal rules each of the suggested theories arrives at its own limits sooner or later. "

[Fred Steeves]

I have to confess onawah, I seldom read very lengthy posts. That's also a major reason why I try to keep mine as brief as possible.

Cheers,
Fred

[Cidersomerset]

Good comments guys I'm not qualified to argue with either of you, all I'll add is wether accurate or not he is captivating and pushing the boundry of physics for the layman to understand.

I like listening to Michio Kaku and watching documentries on Horizon BBC flagship documentry show, which mainly features mainstream scientific views but sometimes they have alternate
views and usually try to debunk them !!....and basically as far as I can work out most of them are trying as Nassim said trying to debunk each other, in order to progress !!!

I watched these earlier in the year........They don,t know whats going on basically, which I find fun......

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iw8anFRL6JY

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Xr5nWRE-LAE

This one blew my mind, and starts straight away stating that nothing is solid and our reality is an illusion ....and there maybe parrallel universes..In 1949 Quantom electo dynamics physicists said that space was made up of atoms & light. Since then they have found so many elements that they call it the partical zoo !! since the discovery of Quarks in 1967 physicists now think the universe is made up of Quarks & electrons,,as you can guess I'm listening to this one again.
near the end he explains the schrodinger's cat theory , which immiediatly made me think of a 'Big Bang Theory episode' ..Which listening to these physicists I think must be a documentry..LOL..
Anyway he is talking about multi verses, parralel universes etc....Welcome to our world boys...LOL

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=OWHzk4b47_0

I like what Ion says all the time , We humans have not got a clue about physics & reality......LOL...Steve..

I

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by onawah (here)
When we have free energy devices based on Nassim's "so-called physics", then I imagine these debates will be viewed as irrelevant by all as much as I consider them to be now.

I entirely agree that free energy exists, and that standard science is wrong for denying it.

But that does not mean that any alternative science that allows for free energy is correct.

Posted by onawah (here)
It's as Rahkyt stated, who is ABD in a PhD program, "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.

Yes, I absolutely agree that mainstream science is broken, incorrect and limited, and that the path we need to find now will be uphill.

But that does not mean that any uphill path is the right one.

Posted by onawah (here)
and Agape:
... 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 for a few principal rules each of the suggested theories arrives at its own limits sooner or later.

I am not blaming Nassim for introducing a difference concept into science. I absolutely agree that the standard model is "very limited" (to put it politely.)

Search my posting history for my comments on Paul LaViolette. I absolutely agree we must find a new path in science, a path that mainstream science would currently ridicule or ignore.

But that does not mean that any "different concept in science" is the right one.

[onawah]

So Paul, if I may ask, how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that "any different concept in science" or "any uphill path" or "any alternative science that allows for free energy" is accurately describing Nassim's work?

There seems to be a very great difference of opinion among scholars in the field, as seen in the critiques containing very high praise from six Ph.D.s, among them one who is a Fellow in the Dept of Physics at Oxford, one who is Nuclear and Astrophysics Physics Research Director at TRL Laboratory, one who is a Former Professor of Evolution Biology at M.I.T. and a United Nations Consultant, one who is Professor of Philosophy, Haverford College and Founder, Director of the Global Dialogue Institute, one who is Professor at California Institute of Psychoacoustics and Former Professor at San Jose State University and President and Chief Engineer – Springlife Polarity Research, and one who is Professor of Mathematics, University of Illinois at Chicago.

Pretty impressive for someone who has only managed to come up with just "any different concept in science".

Here AGAIN are their critiques:
Work which is described by Peter Rowlands, Ph.D.,Research Fellow,
Department of Physics, University of Liverpool,
Governor / Honorary Governor, Manchester College, Oxford
in this way:
“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.”

The same work that is described by Louis H. Kauffman, Ph.D.
Professor of Mathematics,
University of Illinois at Chicago
as follows:
“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)

And by
Elizabeth A. Rauscher, Ph.D., Nuclear and Astrophysics
Physics Research Director, TRL Laboratory
as follows:
“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.”

And by Ashok Gangadean, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy, Haverford College
Founder, Director of the Global Dialogue Institute
thusly:
“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.”

And then we have
Elisabet Sahtouris, Ph.D.
Former Professor of Evolution Biology at M.I.T.
United Nations Consultant, Author
Who says:
“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.”

And finally,
Randolph Wesley Masters
Professor at California Institute of Psychoacoustics
Former Professor at San Jose State University
President and Chief Engineer – Springlife Polarity Research
who writes:
“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.”

Finally, here AGAIN are Nassim's words regarding the:
"attempt to discredit the validity of the CASYS’09 Conference because of the gentleman’s unfamiliarity with this event and insinuates that the postings on my website mislead people to believe that it was an award given for all of physics where it is made clear that the award was given to The Schwarzschild Proton paper for the section of the CASYS’09 Conference in the field of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation” which took place at the University of Liege in Belgium. http://www2.ulg.ac.be/mathgen/CHAOS/
Furthermore, it is clear that the gentleman didn’t take the time to go and investigate the program timetable to examine the other papers that my paper was competing against as he didn’t seem to know how many were submitted in this particular section. The gentleman is correct in asserting that not so many papers would be found there (approximately 20) as not many people in this world have either the capacity to work at this level, or the leisure to find the time to do in depth investigation of extremely difficult problems that were found insurmountable by some of the greatest thinkers in our history.
The papers that were submitted this year were of very high quality from researchers from a wide international community and very reputable institutions. This is nothing unusual for the CASYS Conference physics section, as previous years have seen Nobel Prize Laureates participate, such as in CASYS’07 where I presented as well. As such, I was quite surprised to find my paper winning the Best Paper Award as it was competing against veteran physicists and researchers, including papers from the director of the conference himself. How much did the selection committee know about physics? I don’t know. However, the quality of the physics papers that have been submitted certainly demands that the reviewers have some fairly advanced understanding of physics to be able to even comprehend any of it. "

Anyone who takes the time to read even half of this information would have to arrive at a very different conclusion than one which assesses Nassim's work as "any uphill path".

And any scientist who could come up with "any alternative science that allows for free energy" would be doing pretty well, wouldn't you say?
Enough to potentially change the future of the world, at the very least...

And so what if Paul LaViolette has come up with some interesting theories too?
Does that automatically make Nassim's theories garbage?
I don't think so.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by onawah (here)
So Paul, if I may ask, how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that "any different concept in science" or "any uphill path" or "any alternative science that allows for free energy" is accurately describing Nassim's work?

I was responding to your point that because Nassim's work was a different concept, taking an uphill path, that allowed for free energy, therefore it had merit and therefore "these debates will be viewed as irrelevant by all as much as I consider them to be now". You have ignored my point entirely, and switched back to another tack ... quoting testimonials of Nassim's work by people with impressive credentials.

Let me state my point once, as clearly as I can. Nassim, and yourself, make a point of noticing that Nassim is attacking conventional science and facing an uphill fight. Nassim, and yourself, take this as one form of validation of Nassim's work. It is not.

On your point, just because someone can arrange for some glowing recommendations from people with impressive credentials does not mean their physics is sound.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by onawah (here)
And so what if Paul LaViolette has come up with some interesting theories too? Does that automatically make Nassim's theories garbage? I don't think so.

That's not what I said.

Pretty clearly, you are striving more to score debating points, and willing to use a variety of rhetorical fallacies to that end.

I should cease this "debate". It is not serving well our common intention of increased understanding and awareness.

[onawah]

No, I do not think that just because his work goes against the grain of mainstream science proves that it is right. I never said that.
I do think that most people, including many people on this forum, don't understand what he is saying, not because they resist anything mainstream which would obviously not be typical of this forum, but because they have been indoctrinated into mainstream thinking about psychics, whether they realize it or not.
Some of the very foundations of modern psychics may be inaccurate. That's the point!

The glowing recommendations are from very learned people who, if you read them, you will see are people who are quite familiar with the problems that Nassim is working with now and also with Nassim's work over the years, where it started and where it is heading, as well as what it implies.
I doubt they wrote those recommendations as a mere pat on the head for Nassim or because it would look nice on his website.
I'm sure there was some professional risk for them in praising someone whose work is so controversial.

What is it that makes you believe you are such a better judge than these experienced scientists of what adds up to "sound psychics"?

[onawah]

I think the problem is that our minds find it very difficult to backtrack and unlearn something which we have accepted as truth.
We need to either develop the ability, perhaps through meditation or some other spiritual or metaphysical practice, to take a completely fresh look at the Universe.
Or else develop some sort of intellectual amnesia so that the slate is completely wiped clean of old learning, and we can then replace it with completely new ideas.
Some people have the ability to have a foot in both those realities, of old, accepted theory, and the freshness of a completely new perspective.
I think that is Nassim's gift, and all his contributions in academia aside, I am very grateful that he has been able to share that fresh new look at the Universe with everyone who is willing and able to go there with him.
I also think he is a really wonderful person, and the Mother Lion in me tends to come out roaring with all claws unsheathed when someone is attempting to belittle him.
Probably some karma there.