Nassim Haramein at Project Camelots Awake & Aware Conference September 2011

[onawah]

All I'm going to say is that regarding
www.azureworld.blogspot.com
if I were Nassim, I wouldn't dignify that with an answer either.
Or attacks on the Facebook page, which were probably just as insulting and disrespectful, judging from what I have seen of his critics.
I have no more interest in this debate.
If there is anything that is a discredit to Project Avalon, it is the denigration and ridicule that have been heaped on this man.

Time will tell whether Nassim's work has lasting validity or not, but as far as I am concerned, he has done a fantastic job so far.

Posted by CyRus (here)

Posted by firstlook (here)
Can someone actually talk about the physics and what specific parts people either disagree or agree with. I mean as if you were writing a paper. Both sides seem to not discuss the issue specifically and scientifically showing formula.

www.azureworld.blogspot.com <------ This guy explains it better than I ever could. Again, as people have mentioned, Haramein has written a rather poor rebuttal to his criticisms. Bobathon has written a rebuttal of the rebuttal, and Haramein has been silent ever since.

Also, just to add a little personal flavour to this whole situation:
After having read Bobathon's blog, I looked at Haramein's Facebook page just out of interest. There were several people challenging Haramein on his theories, as every good scientist would. Haramein never answered himself, he only referred to his PhD colleague to answer the questions for him.
When they continued to probe, obviously not satisfied, he banned them stating that they were attacking his research. What kind of a quote, "scientist", is that?

[onawah]

Thank you so much, Agape. I think it could not have been expressed more beautifully.
Nothing more needs to be said, from my perspective.

Posted by Agape (here)
See...this is from above blog of Mr Bobathon

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yaNuYvj-jcc

How beautiful.. and as old Tibetan proverb says , cause and effect are so close to each other as horns of a bull.

See the magician in the video ? What is the distance between art and mathematics ?

What is the difference between intelligence aka logic and perfect symmetry and intuition that precedes the orchestra of neural impulses carrying the work out for you and others to experience it ?

Where is the hidden symmetry if not encoded in ourselves ?


What we see is our eyes fractal reflection , can't be denied at the end ..




Hmm

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by firstlook (here)
Can someone actually talk about the physics and what specific parts people either disagree or agree with. I mean as if you were writing a paper. Both sides seem to not discuss the issue specifically and scientifically showing formula.

As I mentioned above in Post #26 of this thread, I commented on a couple of my objections to Nassim's physics in this post of Jan 2011. I do not recall seeing a response to the actual details of my concerns.

[RMorgan]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by firstlook (here)
Can someone actually talk about the physics and what specific parts people either disagree or agree with. I mean as if you were writing a paper. Both sides seem to not discuss the issue specifically and scientifically showing formula.

As I mentioned above in Post #26 of this thread, I commented on a couple of my objections to Nassim's physics in this post of Jan 2011. I do not recall seeing a response to the actual details of my concerns.

Yes. Basically, when you work with science, you have to work with certain precepts and conventions, in order to achieve a measurable, repeatable and productive result.

If you work with mathematics, you must accept that 1+1=2, for example. You must know that the number 1 represents one unit of something for instance.

It´s ok to contest if the number 1 represents a unit, or to say that 1+1=3, but then you´re not working with mathematics and your results can not be proved to be right using this tool.

Nassim basically does this thing with Physics. He tries to prove his theories using unfounded principles and precepts. If he claims to be working with Physics, he must use the precepts of physics in order for his theories and experiments to be validated, but he´s doing the opposite, denying the most basic and most solid principles.

It´s ok to do whatever he´s doing, but if he wants to accepted in the scientific community he must follow the same basic rules, which are essential rules that define the scientific method, otherwise, he´s not doing science, he´s just wandering.