Saturday, February 13, 2010

Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?

I'd like to outline here some very sound reasons for asserting that Nassim Haramein is grossly misleading people by claiming to have any depth of scientific understanding behind his ideas.

If you'd prefer to just see some straightforward examples, try some of these (también en español) – but do come back when you're done...

Más discusión en espagñol aquí.

(Alternatively, read this if you think I'm just being a bit horrid.)

[Edit Dec 2011: Anyone curious about Haramein's appearance in some obscure 'peer-reviewed' conference proceedings, please see this note: Feel free to ask questions in the comments.]

[Edit July 2013: He's had another pretend science article ("Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass") published in a pretend science journal. please see here for details.]


On many of his videos, and on the main page of his Resonance Project's website, he displays a "prestigious" award for one of his physics papers. What is this?His certificate looks at first to have been awarded for best paper in the whole of "physics, quantum mechanics, relativity, field theory and gravitation" at the entire university of Liège, Belgium in the year 2009, and "chosen by a panel of peer reviewers". That would be quite an accolade.

But when you read the wording, it's clear that it was awarded for best paper presented in that category at a single computing systems conference; and that the 'peer reviewers' who awarded it were just the other people on the conference. Most people understand peer review to mean something quite different.

Two relevant questions here. Firstly, how much would the other people on this conference understand about "physics, quantum mechanics, relativity, field theory and gravitation"? Secondly, how many other papers on these subjects do you think were presented at this particular computing systems conference? It's not likely to be many.

It does sound impressive when described on the website and on videos such as this one. If you've looked at youtube comments and so forth, you'll see that plenty of people are impressed by it. In reality it is no more than a certificate for turning up at a conference in Belgium with a paper.

It seems likely that this is the best he has to show from any respectable institution for his twenty years of research, and he really would like to present something from a university that makes him look like legitimate scientist. You can't accuse him of lying here: to his credit, he puts the certificate in clear view right under our noses. As a display of sheer pretentiousness, it's pretty blatant.


Nassim's main current claim to scientific legitimacy is his paper, The Schwarzschild Proton.

It is eight pages of equations and particle physics, and claims to be a significant step towards potentially deriving the strong force from general relativity. Again, it looks impressive. But there are a number of very sound reasons to dismiss this paper as meaningless.

It's presented as a scientific document, so it's not possible to go into the reasoning properly without using technical language and concepts – which is a shame because I doubt that anyone with a good grasp of these concepts would need me to explain the problems with this paper. For those who are curious, I've presented a more detailed analysis of the Schwarzschild Proton as a separate post.

Broadly, though, the main problems with this paper are:

(a) His overall argument is circular, which means it shows nothing. A hypothesis is presented that a proton might be considered as if it were a black hole, and his first conclusion, after a few pages of equations, is that the forces between them would be very strong, like the forces in a nucleus. But this goes without saying! If you pretend that something is as heavy as a thing can be, then it shouldn't come as a surprise to find that the forces would be as strong as a force can be. There's no significance in this whatsoever.

(b) His theory implies that the nucleus of a single atom of hydrogen has a mass of nearly a billion tons. This does seem a bit silly – but theoretical physicists do hypothesise apparently silly things sometimes, so that's not a deal-breaker. For obvious reasons, though, you need a very convincing reason to do something like that, including an explanation as to why we never measure this huge mass when we weigh hydrogen (or anything else), and none is given.

(c) The paper, while using some scientific terms, is presented at a very basic level. This could be considered a plus – all scientists would agree that there's nothing better than a simple theory, if it works. But Nassim is merely playing with equations from student textbooks (these are the only references cited in the paper), things that have been explored thoroughly for decades, and he's using them in a pretty simplistic way. It's unlikely that he'll find anything that hasn't been found before by doing this. What he has found is some values for things that look suspiciously like what he knew when he started. This is often what happens when you go around in a circle.

It's a bit of a joke to claim that anything profound can come from this kind of thing. But again, it looks cool, and it's clearly enough to impress a lot of his followers. And it won a prestigious award! (see above)

As I mentioned above, you can find a more technical look at his paper here.


Nassim often talks about geometries or field equations or things of mathematical significance. Yet watching videos of him presenting ideas, it's painfully clear that he is clueless when it comes to pretty basic mathematics.

Here is a video of him discussing the phi ratio (or golden ratio), a subject he mentions often. From 3:00 minutes onwards, he is using a CAD program to show a relationship between a phi spiral and a W-shape which has some connection to the 'mathematical' ideas of Marko Rodin.

He spots something that looks like a connection – between the emanation point of the spiral and the intersection of the W-shape (jump in at 5:30 into the video to see this) – and he immediately assumes that he's discovered something significant. What does he do? Does he...

(a) investigate it?No. He does zoom in on it a little on his CAD program to prove his point. But he wouldn't have had to zoom much further to disprove it. In this still from the video, it's fairly clear that the spiral doesn't actually emanate from where the lines cross.

(b) calculate it?No. If he had calculated where the spiral starts and where the lines cross, he'd have found that they're not related at all, and that they're not the same point. If anyone is interested, I've done the calculations here. They're not very difficult – no more than the maths I knew from A-level when I was 17.

(c) announce that his 'discovery' relates to interference resonances and has profound implications for Einstein's field equations and matter spiralling into a black hole and that it links his theories to the 'Mathematical Fingerprint of God'?Yes! It's (c). Watch the video. That's what he does.

[Edit 18th Nov: the original video was removed from YouTube, as was the one I found after that, but this third one has most of the same footage in it. Unfortunately it's missing the clip of Haramein relating his work to the 'Mathematical Fingerprint of God', but it wouldn't take you long to find Rodin blurting these claims about the W shape.]

So what? Well to me this is significant. We see the results of this kind of thinking throughout his presentations; this is just one particularly blatant example. It makes it clear that this is not someone who investigates mathematical or scientific ideas when jumping to conclusions will do. Nassim (and indeed the other participants in the video) is someone who is way too ready and willing to make outrageous claims, and to jump on anything that looks kind-of right without stopping to question it. He drags into his explanations as many established scientific concepts as possible to make what he says sound convincing, however irrelevant they may be, and throws in some seriously wacky ones for good measure. This is someone who brings the phi ratio, fractals, dimensions or infinities glibly into his presentations and plays the expert, but meanwhile is clueless about mathematics.

No physicist would ever do this. (Well... one would hope.)

For what it's worth, if you still think there may be some connection, common sense should be enough to tell you that when matter spirals into a black hole it is pulled in faster (begins to dive in at a steeper angle) as it moves towards the centre, rather than completing more and more orbits as it gets closer, as shown on Nassim's spiral. I've explained this a little more in the maths post.

I think this example goes some way to explain why so many people love the 'intuitively right' feel of Nassim's ideas. It feels intuitively right to some people because his approach is simply to spot what seems to be a connection or a pattern, and link it up to the first thing that it reminds him of. He's also a master story-teller. Physics could really do with more people who can communicate like him (but who understand what they're talking about, are a bit less self-obsessed and self-promoting, and will tell the truth). Nassim Haramein is not an investigator, rigorously testing his ideas on the touchstone of reality. He is not – as he claims – a physicist. He's a fraud.

The appeal of his ideas – making the complexities of the universe graspable and simple to understand – is a false appeal. The Universe far more beautiful and complex than this, and far more of a slippery customer. Getting even a glimpse of how it works has taken the collaborative effort of massive numbers of rigorous, dedicated researchers over the ages. It's an affront to Nature to claim that it can be grasped by whatever models and connections happen to come into one guy's head, untested and unquestioned, however intuitive and exciting and real it may all have seemed to him at the time.

It's a attractive idea. Who wants 'the scientists' to have all the answers? The idea that this one guy-next-door character might have these lovely little insights into physics that have all escaped the entire scientific community, that would be one in the eye for the institutions, wouldn't it. You can see the appeal. It'd be a great thing to be a part of. If he wasn't simply making it all up.


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? None of his papers have been published in any scientific journal – certainly not one subject to proper peer review. Scientists seem to either treat him as a crank or dismiss him altogether. Which of the following reasons sounds most plausible? Is it...

(a) because the scientific establishment are afraid of having all their precious theories overturned?

Science loves having theories overturned. It's true that individual scientists are human and can be reluctant to accept when their way of seeing things is revealed to be false. Some will be slower to accept new things than others. But all will agree that this is part of the job of being a scientist. In addition, many scientists are deeply competitive, and for every theory beloved to one set of scientists, there'll be another set that is devoted to looking for any serious evidence they can use to pull the rug out from under it.

The world scientific community is an extremely diverse and argumentative bunch. Surely it would be crazy to imagine them being capable of unanimously agreeing to dismiss perfectly good ideas sitting right under all their noses.

This is a fact compatible with even the most cynical view of scientists – that they're more often out to prove each other wrong, even to backstab, than to back each other up. It makes it implausible that any scientist actually sees Nassim's ideas as any sort of threat. His ideas have simply never been taken seriously.

(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?

Scientists can be guilty of narrow thinking. If you specialise in an extremely complex area, the effort of getting your head around the ideas within one framework might be so taxing that the last thing you want to be doing is considering the possibility that the whole framework might be wrong. At the same time, there are many scientists who are mavericks and ready for change, ready to throw it all up in the air. They also have all manner of values, and all manner of spiritual outlooks and practices.

There are hundreds of thousands of scientists in the universities of the world, and their ways of thinking are as various as any other group of hundreds of thousands of human beings - if not more so. There'll always be plenty of scientists hungry for any radical idea, especially in topics as hot as grand unified theories, provided it's got some substance.

There may well be unanimous skepticism about things which have utterly no scientific basis, such as someone claiming to have a theory that the moon is made of green cheese. But this is not because of any inability to think outside of the box.

Regarding outsiders – yes, pride and over-cautiousness can get in the way of scientists taking suggestions seriously from people not affiliated to a university. But would every single one of them fall prey to this? Again, scientists, and even scientific establishments, are surely too numerous and too diverse for this to be plausible.

When Garrett Lisi submitted a potentially revolutionary theory for the unification of particle physics, he was an unemployed surfer living in a camper van on a Hawaiian island with no university affiliation. (Aside from now renting a room in a shared house, it seems he still is.) Perhaps the majority of physicists initially did not take him seriously. But there were certainly plenty who did, who were waiting for someone like this to challenge everything, who looked at his work and thought "you know, this guy really does know what he's talking about. He could be onto something here. And I want in on this."

There are so many other examples of theories being accepted from outsiders (Einstein, for one) that this answer doesn't hold any water. If he isn't getting taken seriously, it certainly can't be blamed on a complete worldwide closed-mindedness among all respectable scientists.

(c) because they haven't come across his ideas yet?

Nassim and his Resonance Project have a massive internet presence, and they've been promoting their ideas to scientific bodies, presenting at university conferences (alongside student projects and industry researchers) throughout the world, and submitting papers to peer-review journals at every opportunity for most of the last decade. Not to mention training hundreds of people to promote their ideas for them.

There have been considerable efforts to put an article about Nassim Haramein, the scientist, on Wikipedia. The results can be seen here – I think you'll find the discussion revealing.

(It's worth noting that all Garrett Lisi did to set the academic world abuzz was to present his ideas at a single relatively obscure conference in Iceland.)

(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?

I reckon so.
The Schwarzschild Proton and other ideas from The Resonance Foundation have also been discussed in depth at


A similar question. How is it that none of his radical historical ideas have any support from any academic institutions either?

I promised I'd stick to the scientific side... but I'd suggest something roughly along the lines of 'ditto'

There was more I had planned to discuss here. I honestly could go on and on with this guy, but it's already rather longer than I anticipated. (I'm open to suggestions, though.) I don't know how much evidence folks feel they need.

[Edit on 8th June: More clear examples of Haramein (a) being clueless about all aspects of physics, and (b) making absurd claims for his insights into physics, can be found in a new post here.]

I'm aware that not everyone understands what evidence is. Some people are even prepared to argue that the more effort we put into 'debunking' someone like Nassim, the more likely it is that he's right, because otherwise why would we go to so much trouble?

No. The reason I want to 'debunk' him is because he's wrong. I teach physics and maths to students, and I think it's important to let them know when something is wrong. It's important to be able to tell truth from falsehood - if we don't, then we lose sight of truth altogether. I don't like it when someone pretends to have insights into the laws of physics that all the scientists of the world are supposedly too dumb to have realised, but in fact has nothing but charisma and a silvery tongue. And I noticed that there don't seem to be many detailed explanations on the web of why he is wrong. So I thought, at the risk of looking like a nutter for going on about someone at such length, that I'd try to address the imbalance.

Cultivating the image of being a serious scientist by making misleading and false claims in order to attract paying followers is a serious abuse of trust. There are plenty of others I could have gone for instead. Marko Rodin is one. But you have to start somewhere.

I've posted this on an old and rather silly anonymous blog of mine that happens to still get some traffic (mainly because of the Planck Monkeys), because it means I can go on at length without it giving him any legitimacy.

Now if you just want to listen to him because he can tell an entertaining, inspiring, but rather silly story, full of stuff he's made up, then I wouldn't argue with you for doing that at all.

[Edit 22nd July: Response to this article by Nassim Haramein...]

Response from Nassim Haramein

Nassim Haramein's Resonance Project has published a detailed response to this article. To find out more and to read his response for yourself, please see here. Thank you.

Some links:
The fate of Nassim Haramein on Wikipedia.
Discussion on Bad Astronomy forum
Debate at
Little url for these articles:
A (small) Facebook group[Back to blog]


«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 819   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Excellent debunking of a blatant and dishonest snake oil salesman. Please add more to the blog if you get time. Haramein needs all the debunking we can get. He is deliberately misleading a lot of people who might otherwise spend their time looking at real science.

Anonymous said...

(a) investigate it?

No. He does zoom in on it a little on his CAD program to prove his point. But if you look closely at this still from the video, you can see that the spiral doesn't actually emanate from where the lines cross at all. (At this point he announces that his idea is more true than what you see on the screen.)

Haramein does not claim in the video the spiral emanates from the cross, he says that it "tries" to go to that crossing.

Anonymous said...

"(b) His theory implies that the nucleus of single atom of hydrogen has a mass of nearly a billion tons. This does seem a bit silly – but theoretical physicists do hypothesise apparently silly things sometimes, so that's not a deal-breaker. For obvious reasons, though, you need a very convincing reason to do something like that, including an explanation as to why we never measure this huge mass when we weigh hydrogen, and none is given."

I thought he showed the steps in the video using QM calculations of the Plancks Distance. Mark 54:30 - 106:00 from this video

Anonymous said...

"For a more rigorous look at his paper, see here [yes, it's the one I haven't posted yet]."

I would like to see your review of his papers pointing out the errors. When will you have it up? That would be really interesting and could steer me to your side of the debate.

Anonymous said...

"He spots something that looks like a connection – between the emanation point of the spiral and the intersection of the W – and immediately assumes that he's discovered something significant. What does he do? Does he..."

As you can tell from the video with Marko Rodin on that conference he clearly state that he did not publish any papers on this discovery..why maybe he didn't want to pursue it further AND he also DOES NOT talk about this on any of his presentation i've seen so far.

Anonymous said...

"The appeal of his ideas – making the complexities of the universe graspable and simple to understand – is a false appeal."

I guess Einstein's equation E=mc^2 us also a false appeal. It's so simple!

Bob said...

Thanks for the comments. Please email me (address at top of blog) if you'd like to discuss this in more detail, as there's not a lot of space here.

Re the 5 comments 4.35am-5.17am:

1. When he says the spiral "tried to go to the cross" he's referring to the fact that logarithmic spirals never reach their emanation point. I think it's clear he believed the cross was at that point.

2. If you're referring to the energy density of the vacuum, yes he mentions it, but it doesn't come into the calculations leading to his model for the proton. If it had, it would have a mass 10^41 times bigger than the billion tons he already gave it.

3. I'm going to need another period when I have a lot of time on my hands. :)

4. I'm referring to the way he prefers to jump to outlandish conclusions rather than actually find out what's behind something - we see the result of this in every talk he gives, but here we see it happening.

5. Science relies on investigation, dialogue, challenge, and having any idea pushed to breaking point to see if it's true. E=mc^2 is part of a theory that has been absolutely thoroughly investigated, used and tested in every conceivable set of conditions for a hundred years. There's more to it than an idea that popped into some guy's head one day. Look up "falsifiability" on Wikipedia - it's an essential part of any science. All physicists aim for it. If an theory can't be disproved if it's wrong, it's an empty idea.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the reply and I'm looking forward to your future post. It does help me "jump back" and see things more objectively. I'm not a physicist nor a mathematician so trying to understand the mathematics behind everything is too hard for me.

Guille said...

hi guys
it's been really interesting to read these posts..
amongst the few things i've seen that try to analise nassim under an objective light
i have to say a couple of things here that may help to provide another angle. although i really, really dont expect to change anyone's mind here. those people that can hear these ideas and not see that it is not about deniability. it's about a completely new paradigm where the system for providing that deniability has itself to be created... they cannot be convinced of much in this respect.

1. i have a masters in physics from the oxford university in the uk. i didnt pursue a doctorate but i do know something about physics.
2. i've met nassim in person, and spent 3 days with him in the south of spain. i resonated with him not only as an enthusiast for the truth, but also on a personal level. he really is a humble, eager human with normal problems like we do, and treats them as best he can.
3. he is not trained in the scientific method, or in mathematics, and openly admits both these facts. he actually asked me for help with mathematics as its not his strong point. hence elisabeth raucher's help in writing his papers.
4. if you are failing to see the beauty behind the swartzschild proton paper (which i think is really not circular at all, and quite ground braking) try to have a look at his paper on the spin of einstein field equations. he solves the problem of black matter and of the largely ignored but highly problematic problem of where the heck all this angular momentum comes from (within the atom, regarding our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, the cluster etc..). solution still needs a little fine tunning but it is very, very powerful.
only this point would already merit a nobel prize. if you ignore the rest of his work.
which i wouldnt do if i was you.
5. once the technology starts getting build that uses the plasma dynamics around an artificially created swartzchild system, you'll have all the proof you want. without deniability and all that crap. of course, many scientists will see a machine using that energy, and still demand a water tight theory that can be falsified, otherwise it isnt science. in my view, there is far too much of a rush to produce clean energy to spend time pleasing the ears of skeptics. i wish mr.haramein much luck, and i'm personally going to be helping him as much as i can.

all the best,

Bob said...

Hi Guillermo, and thanks for your thoughts.

I can't argue with you if you believe that Nassim is pleasant person to be with, or that he's an enthusiast for the truth, as I've never met him.

What concerns me is the fact that if the scientific method and mathematics are weak points for him, why does he cultivate the image of himself as a physicist at the cutting edge of research and present lectures on physics and geometry?

Why doesn't he explain to his audiences that he has little understanding of science or of maths? Instead he tells them that he has the real insights into physics, insights that all the world's physicists do not have. He calls himself a physicist, and places himself above all other physicists. This is the way of a man who is either very deluded or plain manipulative, not one who is 'humble'.

I think you've misunderstood the idea of falsifiability. If a theory makes predictions that can yield real results, then it is a powerful theory and it certainly won't be overlooked by science.

If you'd like to explain the new paradigm and where its connection with 'truth' is, and how it's any different to someone just coming up with creative stories with no evidence basis and no way of telling whether they might be true or not, then do.

My feeling is that whatever merits this 'paradigm' has, it has little connection with science, physics, and so forth. There's no reason why you and Nassim shouldn't explore things with whatever paradigm you like, but if it's not physics then why call it physics? Nassim calling himself a physicist is as ridiculous and as dishonourable as calling himself the President of the USA (and saying it's true according to a new paradigm which none of the other politicians understand).

The paper on Einstein Field Equations is a strange one. I haven't explored it in any detail, but it also appears to be circular. It's certainly had no support at all from anywhere within the scientific community. A physicist I've recently been in contact with, who spent some time analysing it, summed it up like this:

"Haramein makes grand claims about his solution to Einstein's field equations. However, when one works out the calculation, this is not a solution to Einstein's equations - there's a term left over. Instead of just stating correctly that this is not a solution, Haramein claims these new equations, with this erroneous term, should replace Einstein's equations. This is a bit like saying you've made a revolutionary discovery that 2+3=4, under your new definition of 4, and then talking endlessly about the wonderful significance of your new 3 in this context."

So, as you say, it probably does 'need a little fine tuning'.

Anyway, I wish you the best with your efforts to provide clean energy. If you're in such a rush that you have no time at all to find a way to convince other intelligent and resourceful people to help on something so obviously desirable as this, then your priorities look a little skewed. (Either that or the intelligent and resourceful people can see very clearly that there's nothing in it.)

Good luck with it.

Loek said...

Hi Bob,

Thank you very much for your explanation of why the work of Nassim is not correct. I was looking at it today and found two thoughts to be remembered.
The first one being whereever there is an action, there must be a reaction. Is the Big Bang understandable without any immediate reaction, like he is telling? The second idea being the fractal layering of reality. It might be a paradigm to explain how the same laws applied to different levels of reality (galaxies, solar systems, atomic interaction) work differently on different levels. Using an idea like fractals can explain why on the macro level the relativity theory is used and on the micro level quantum mechanics. That Nassim talked negatively about quantum mechanics, while fractal layering uses a similar model with discriminate steps, was for me quite surprising. I thought he would love quantum mechanics. The latter is corroborated so often, that any new theory to replace quantum mechanics will have a hard job. (Falsification is not the only principle in science, corroboration is needed to. A theory must have explaining power.) The way he talked about quantum mechanics was for me the reason to look at reviews like yours. If you want to talk seriously about physics, then it is inevitable to pay respect to these two theories. But could fractal layering be an idea to ground the unification of physics upon?

With kind regards,


Bob said...

Thanks Loek

I'm not sure what kind of 'reaction' you mean when you talk about the Big Bang. I also don't know what you mean by 'fractal layering of reality'. The universe isn't a fractal - very different things happen at different scales.

I also don't know how to unify the laws of physics! There are thousands of fantastic people working on this. But I can GUARANTEE that not one of them would for a moment consider discarding quantum field theory or general relativity. That would be like trying to climb Everest without even being in Asia.

Anonymous said...

you don't make any effort to try to think out from conventional model

Loek said...

Hi Bob,

With action and reaction I was referring to the third law of Newton.

I can GUARANTEE :-) you that I would be the last person on earth to discard quantum mechanics or relativity theory.
I thought it is the goal of physics to unify all laws, see:
So I am surprised that you say that you do not know what I mean. My question as a layman was if the use of fractals can be used as a paradigm for the unification of the physical forces. Your answer was 'no' and I am satisfied with that question.

With kind regards,


Bob said...

Hi Loek

Yes, I was agreeing with you about quantum and relativistic physics. Apologies for the capitals - they sometimes upset people. :)

And I didn't say I didn't know what unification of physics meant - just that I don't know how to do it.

Newton's Third Law has no problem in dealing with explosions or any other event where matter flies in all directions. All it states is that whenever an impulse is given to one piece of matter sending it one way, an opposing impulse must have sent another piece of matter the other way, giving an overall momentum of zero.

The Big Bang isn't really an explosion, it's a space-time singularity, but there's no reason to suspect that total momentum imparted to the universe is anything other than zero. But (a) there's not really a 'before' to which you can compare the momentum 'after'; and (b) when there are very high speeds or high space-time curvature, Newton's Laws break down anyway - you need Einstein's field equations to describe what happens to momentum.

At extremely high energies (right after the Big Bang), quantum effects become significant and Einstein's equations break down too.

So it's a bit of a complicated question.

Bob said...

Anonymous: I think I've made quite a lot of effort. As have many of the people on the science forums I linked to near the bottom of the article - do make the effort to read these too.

If you make no effort to understand the 'conventional model' then you are going nowhere.

This is an extremely important point.

After all, it's only 'conventional' because it works. It's pathetic to use 'conventional' as if it's an insult.

Of course we want to break out to beyond where we currently are - that's what science is about - but if you want to go beyond a conventional model, you have no chance at all unless you first understand why the 'conventional model' (in particular quantum field theory and general relativity) is such a powerful predictive tool and description of how nature works.

So go away and learn QFT and GR, then come back and explain to me why they work so well, and then perhaps you can start working on something better. How's that sound?

Loek said...

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the explanations. I did not know if I had formulated precisely enough what I meant with the unity of physics.
Wow, what an idea to have a space-time singularity. That is a real starting point, because you can not measure or the speed or the mass, what you can do with all other particles.

With kind regards,


TC said...

I've always felt there is a certain arrogance in the "official" science community that probably only hinders the advancement of new ideas. People are different - some excel in the details, some are "big picture" thinkers (wasn't Einstein?) I'm certainly no expert. But lacking a formal education in math and physics doesn't make him a crackpot snake oil salesman. That's like saying this guy can't make music because he was self taught and can't read music:

With that in mind, I did come across your article trying to find how big a grain of salt I needed while watching Haramein's videos. (Medium) It was a good read, thank you. And I did end up somehow surfing into the world of 3d Mandelbrots following links from your article, which is REALLY cool!:

Learn something new every day! I'd never even heard of a Mandelbrot, but this link was an excellent intro if anyone else were interested:

But regarding my first point, one thing that's always bugged me with "real" scientists - It seems to me when their equations don't explain some facet of the universe the way it should, they just make stuff up and say something like "It turns out, you see, there's this 'dark matter' out there and when we make up a number for that and plug it into our equation, but then we have to add in this other unknown, we'll call it 'dark energy' ....". Anyway, thanks again.

Bob said...

Hi TC.

You're right about the arrogance thing. I do try not to be arrogant, but I'm not always very good at it. I think it's true that there can certainly be arrogance in the science community. But I also think that the scientific process itself is very easily misinterpreted as arrogance, especially from the outside.

The way ideas evolve in science is by them being repeatedly, you could say, attacked. They are attacked using logic, they are attacked by the requirement for clarity of terminology and argument, they are attacked if their claims are out of proportion with their substance. In this way they are exposed if they are flawed, and only the ideas which are relevant, substantial and not full of mistakes survive. This is part of the scientific ideal. The reality may differ, of course, because it's a community of flawed human beings like any other, but I think to a great extent it holds true. Science is a rough old world, and it's not for everybody.

I honestly can't see how science could work otherwise. Lots of people have ideas, and most of them are garbage (or, let's be more charitable, they're nice ideas but they don't have much relationship with the objective reality they claim to represent). If we didn't have a very tough filtering process, we'd lose sight of the most powerful ideas. So when an idea comes along that claims to have some scientific relevance, it will be ripped apart if it's illogical, unclear, insubstantial and full of mistakes.

To the scientist, this is part of life, and it helps them clarify their argument and produce something that gets as close to the truth as possible. To a non-scientist it often seems indistinguishable from a personal attack, and the natural response is to blame it on scientists' prejudice against outsiders.

If a piece of work is jumped on by scientists, it's usually because it's illogical, unclear, insubstantial or full of mistakes. Reasons will be given as to what the flaws are in the work. If its as flawed throughout as Haramein's work, then it will be summmarily dismissed. Which is exactly what we see. It's not a very "nice" process.

Compare it with any sport, say sprinting. Anyone with sufficient mobility can run 100m. But to be up there making history you have to be prepared to do it again and again alongside others, and if they tear you to shreds on the track then you have to train more and learn to get it right. You don't take it personally unless your ego is way too bigger than your abilities. Imagine someone comes along, charismatic and bright-eyed and popular, and they claim to be the fastest runner in the world. If you see that their leg muscles are underdeveloped, you're probably going to doubt them. And if you see them run and they're tripping over themselves, what are you going to say? What if they start complaining that it's a closed-minded community, full of people with prejudices against underdeveloped leg muscles? If your performance isn't up to scratch, you'll not make the team.

So I really think that the observer can add hugely to this perception of scientists being arrogant. It's unfortunate... I don't know what the resolution of this could be. It probably sets people against science and scientists, and instead they turn to people who seem nicer and make them feel better. Scientists can of course try to be more encouraging and positive... but in the end, when someone's wrong, if nobody's prepared to make it very clear that they're wrong, then we've lost sight of the quest for truth completely.

It's really nothing to do with 'having an education'.

Thanks for the music link, btw, it's amazing. And I love 3D mandelbrots.

Bob said...

Oh, and then there's dark matter and so forth... Look, it's important to see that these are just theories, they're just ideas. They're favoured by scientists at the moment - but that's not because some respected professor came up with them. They're favoured because they've been attacked, they've been tested, they've been pulled apart and they're still standing. Scientists have attacked this dark matter idea as much as they attack anything else. They've said, ok, if this stuff is there like you suggest, then if you look over here at that galaxy you should see these effects, so show me. And they've looked, and it's been exactly as the dark matter theory predicted. This has gone on now for decades. The theory has been shown to have predictive power. If things are discovered that conflict with it, the theory will fall away and others will gradually replace it. If dark matter candidates are detected at the LHC or elsewhere, it'll gain even more favour. This is how it goes.

This rigorous testing and attempt to undermine every scientific idea is the part that non-scientists don't see, and I really wish they could. It might not seem very nice, but it's precisely this process that gives real substance to the ideas that science happens to favour at the moment. When things do move on, it's because of this process, not in spite of it.

I hope you can understand that an idea that can survive this kind of scrutiny is not just some made-up story any more.

Nassim's ideas simply do not stand up to any sort of scientific scrutiny. This really isn't a matter of opinion. It's certainly not prejudice. This what I've tried to show in my article; and it's what you'll see (in an informal way) if you check the science forums too, such as the one at

And he definitely will be scrutinised, because he's claiming not only that his ideas are based on science, but that they're based on the cutting-edge of science, the very pinnacle of science, beyond the current state of physics. If this were true, his ideas simply wouldn't come up so empty and full of flaws when subject to analysis. If someone makes claims like that, they'd really better have to have something to show for it. He has nothing to show but impressive-sounding stories that use some scientific words and make people go wow. This may be enough for some people, if they're more interested in how it makes them feel than whether or not it's true (I would argue that Haramein's followers are precisely these people); but science will never work that way. And nor should it.

I hope that's helpful.

Every time someone makes a really interesting comment, I seem to be going off into some massive essay. I'm enjoying it - please keep them coming. And if you don't agree with what I'm saying, let me know. If you feel I'm missing the point, let me know how - I'd like to understand more.

Thanks again for your thoughts, TC.

Loek said...

Hi TC,

About the dark matter. IMO that is indeed a concept which shows that not everything is well understood currently. Having an estimation of 40%, I thought, of the mass of the total universe, there is still a lot to explore. If the theory using dark matter was not successful in any respect, it would be called a very bad theory and in the end dismissed by the society. The case is, that the theory can explain a lot. And with the postulates about dark matter even more. So, dark matter is not just a proof that the theory itself is bad. There is just a huge field of exploration left.:-)

At the start of physics a lot of processes were not well understood. If scientists would have given up their task trying to understand the universe, just because they did not know it right from the start, that would have been a big miss. As long as the theory can explain a lot of things, and it can, then it is not an urgent problem that a postulate like dark matter has to be created. In the long run it will be, because the ROI for the society will become too small. That for instance might become the problem of the collider in Geneva. Who will invest in a huge project if the revenues are that uncertain? The good thing about physics and any science is that it must have results to proceed. The bad thing about dark matter is that the science community currently does not know where these results can be found. A challenging task. The clock is running.

With kind regards,


Micheal said...

Hmm, seems more of slander here.

Einstein quote "Imagination is more important than knowledge.."

now all i heard was you attacking math skills on this and nothing about the forward out the box thinking..

Bob said...


I'm aware that what I've said isn't going to be popular in some circles. But there are a million reasons why it's not slander.

Nassim not only claims scientific authority – he claims to be at the top of the field, at the cutting-edge, ahead of the game. I've explained clearly my reasons for thinking this is a blatant lie on Nassim's part – or else a gross delusion. Either way, I believe it's important for anyone considering following him to be aware of this.

He uses this misinformation to convince people into believing that he speaks with authority on physics, geometry, cosmology, etc. It's clear that he has no such skills. And I've focused on this precisely because it reveals him as the fake that he is.

That's why I've focused on the science and the maths.

Michael, would it be okay for me to obscenely exaggerate my scientific authority in order to attract a following, so long I use imagination and "out the box thinking" to weave a great story?

Everyone loves imagination and fiction – but would you want to be presented with a work of the imagination by someone who's set on trying to convince you that they've proved it to be scientifically true, and giving you lies about research?

And, by abusing the trust of his followers in this way, what kind of spiritual teacher does that make him? Someone who lies about the very fundamentals of what he teaches will only damage those who follow him.

I get the feeling from your post that you'd probably take a lot of convincing to see what I mean. I wish you happiness in the land of Nassim's imagination, if that's what you prefer.

Antiquer said...

Bob; Great job debunking this character by some one qualified. I look forward to any additional comments. We need all the ammo we can get to totally debunk him, he has already done to0 much damage.

You might wish to see the discussion of his ridiculous ideas concerning the Ark of the Covenant here;
Best wishes and keep up the good work.

Al (Antiquer)

Bob said...

Thanks, Antiquer. Good to see some perspectives on his Ark ideas, as I have no understanding of that material.

It fascinates me that people defend his ideas on completely unrelated topics by asserting that he must be a brilliant thinker because he published a unified field theory. In fact he clearly has no understanding of any sort of field theory. What he seems to have done is hired a physicist to produce a few cool-looking papers, all of which have been received with derision by the scientific community. He also has a huge publicity machine and a large following, and so far has been able to get his own distortion of reality out there much more effectively than any refutation of it.

I'm hopeful that this can change, and that people like you, who are knowledgeable in the other subjects that he distorts, can restore some clarity to the mess that he's made and also expose the gaping hole in the 'brilliant thinker' defence.

Good work, mate.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this great post. We need less con jobs trying to milk money and fame from the masses and more actual science.

whenisnow said...

Has Nassim Haramein really contended that he's a cutting-edge physicist? As far as I heard, he claimed that he was crazy, and even his physicist cohort Elizabeth Rauscher claimed that she thought he was crazy as first glance, but also that he was onto something.

If anything, he may go down as a muse of avant guarde physics and metaphysics, or a mystic of sorts.

But like you noted about Garrett Lisi, there is room in the modern infosphere for little people with big ideas. If Haramein's squirelly notions haven't yet spurred his scientific com padres toward worthwhile resolutions, like Einstein said, "Ninety-nine times, the conclusion is false. The hundredth time I am right."

Haramein is certainly living a good life doing what he is doing. Maybe he's just a good-hearted person with nutty ideas and enough enthusiasm that people will throw money at him to keep him rambling. I know his double-torus notions have got me musing on the structure of galaxies.

Bob said...

Hi Whenisnow

He certainly does pretend to be a cutting-edge physicist; and the way he describes his theories, research, papers etc. encourages others to report him as one.

He can go down as whatever you like - and if people are happy to pay him money to keep him rambling then I've no problem with that. I'd like them to know that he's fabricating what he says to please his audience, though.

Garrett Lisi was doing serious investigative physics - he didn't just make something up that sounded good in order to impress people who don't know any better and get them to like him.

There's a real distinction here - one that involves truth and integrity.

If you want to muse on the structure of galaxies, that's great - but if you want to *find out* about the structure of galaxies, then don't look to Haramein - look to people who devote their lives to rigorously investigating and uncovering the truth.

This is a good one on how galaxies evolve:

Anonymous said...

It seems some people (quantum phys.) are terrified of the prospect that they might have been wrong.

You might just be a good example-- a new way of thinking generating skepticism and repulsion... hasnt this happened before? (HINT: think Jesus, Galileo, Columbus, Einstein, etc...)

Bob said...

Yes, some people are terrified of the prospect of being wrong.

You'll probably find they're not generally the ones who expose their ideas to the public, explain all their reasoning in detail, and invite others to scrutinise it.

Do you believe that if an idea generates skepticism and repulsion then it must be true? Because that's just silly. :)

Rebecca said...

Thank you Michael

Imagination is more important than knowledge. So goes the motto of our Home School.

What about the conclusion that matter acts as the observer would believe (intent). Was Einstein then trying to indicate that imagination can then create a Universe as we believe? Does this mean that as the general concious thought changes so does our illusionary reality? Could it be that 20 yrs from now we have an even greater expanding universe that requires continued inspection? Could it be that thought does create and as long as we are thinking we continue to create and thereby we exist? Could it be that if a genius such as Bob figures it all out then the Gig is up? Poof, no need for us the thinkers just the imaginers will continue to BE?

Just asking.

Happy Thinking I would Imagine. :)

Bob said...

Hello Rebecca.

Your questions sound rhetorical, but I like them anyway.

1. I really very much doubt it.
2. I'm sure our illusionary reality changes all the time, but Einstein's and others' aim was to get at something beyond that.
3. I don't know what that means. The universe will be bigger, and our understanding will be bigger (I hope), and we'll 'inspect' it if we feel the need. It's us that needs to investigate, not the universe that needs inspecting. :)
4. (same as 2?)

5. You're funny. I don't think humans will ever be up to the job of 'figuring it all out'. But some do feel drawn to the quest of figuring as much out as possible, or of figuring one thing out as beautifully as possible, all the while knowing they can never perfect it. Then they have to try to communicate, and others have to try to hear, and also to try to choose who to hear. It's a never-ending adventure, and one that's there for everyone who cares enough to play.

6. Thinking without imagination is empty, cold, repetitive. Imagination without thinking is circular, superficial, a wasted opportunity. In my view, anyway. They're brethren, are they not? Merely shadows without each other.

Imagination is vital. But don't you then long to add a question: is there reality in this? is there truth? Is this how it is? But is it REALLY? How can I find out? How can I explore this? How do I know it's not illusory? Add this question and you're onto something.

If you find that it could well be illusory, then it's up to you if you want to take that seriously. Perhaps that's what separates science from pseudoscience - I don't know. For me, it's what separates people with integrity from people without.

If you have a pretty story, but nothing really to support it, lots of people have very good reason to say it's false, do you

(a) test it, question it, engage with the debate, being prepared to let go of your precious ideas if they don't hold up, and continue with the quest; or

(b) invent more and more things to back it up, and meanwhile bask in the attention and blame the 'mainstream' (or something similar) for putting your ideas down?

That's my question. To me, there's a big difference: (a) is heroic, (b) is a sorry sight. I guess not everyone thinks this way.

There are certainly some people who massively mistrust science, and relish any opportunity to bash it. I can understand this. If someone is out there trying to separate fact from fiction, people can get upset with them if they appear to make judgements from on high. I really don't want to do that. But I do want to say what I think, and I want to invite others to think about what I'm saying if they wish to. Nothing more.

Happy thinking.

Anonymous said...

Excellent work, Bob.

I myself am a solar physicist, of which i have a doctorate, and a 1st class degree in mathematics.

I'd like to make a small comment - YOU CANNOT PROVE OR MAKE UP ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORY WITHOUT MATHEMATICAL EVIDENCE. Any scientist knows this. Otherwise, it's just philosophy. Anyone who claims to be a physicist who doesn't understand maths, is crazy. Maths is the language of physics. So to understand the physics is to understand the maths. It works hand in hand.

For the person who claimed to have got a masters in physics from oxford - absolute garbage. You can't even spell properly, and anyone who went to oxford would be more than capable.


I have to admit, i like listening to the guy - it's entertaining. It's like watching a good tv show. But that's all it is.

I find it incredible that people who have no concept of physics can even argue the point. But hey, live and let live. I think the guy is wrong, and a complete fraud. Fair play to him for making a career out of this though - he's more than likely earning more money than i do as a "real" researcher.

Thanks Bob - you've explained quite a number of things excellently, and in a way that many people can probably understand. That is not an easy thing to do. I myself struggle with this when i present my work at real science conferences.

Loek said...

Hi James,

I had a smile when I read your capitals. It reminded me of the dialogs of Socrates, who was a master in logical reasoning and for sure would have challenged your statement as it is a perfect example of a snake biting it's own tail. Obviously, you can not prove this statement using mathematics as you are talking at least partly about situations in which mathematics can not be applied. Therefor is what you say a philosophical statement, not a scientifical one. Direct implication of this conclusion is that non-mathematical philosophy precedes, delineates and defines science. The most principle way to prove something is a scientific theory is as a consequence to use non-mathematical philosophy. And now for the Socrates part: which can be refrased into 'you can not prove or make up any scientific theory using mathematical evidence'. Ouch.

With kind regards,


JT said...

Hey Bob, as everyone has previously been asking, yet you keep refraining from putting forth, is a rebuttal of one of Haramein's scientific papers.

Lets see line for line your genius in debunking his papers, and until then, you should bend over and pull your head out of your ass.

You keep spitting nonsense about how he knows nothing of math, etc, well, lets see you provide a mathmatical debunking of his equations.

Unitl that time that you privide your own scientific EVIDENCE to debunk his actual physics (not LAYMANS presentations), you should really shut up, and stop embarassing yourself.

Good Day :)

Bob said...

Hi James

Thanks for your comments, they're much appreciated. It's true that science seems to require the language of maths - there doesn't seem to be any way around this. I'd rather leave the philosophy of science to others as it's not really my thing (and I don't really understand Loek's point).

I would say, though, that it's perfectly feasible that a Spanish-speaker such as Guillermo above could do a Masters at Oxford without perfect English spelling. I did wonder, though, about his understanding of his subject. But I can report that there's no shortage of people in Oxford who think in unusual ways. So who knows.

Yes, Nassim can be entertaining, you're right. Though I find him painful to watch. He's certainly not the only entertainer who messes around with people's heads and fills them with crap! If that's what people want, then of course they're very welcome to him :-)

Bob said...

Hi JT.

I'm sorry to hear that you haven't been able to see any rebuttal anywhere in the text above. I thought I'd said a few quite substantial things. You must require a very high standard of reasonable evidence before you take any ideas on board, which is admirable. :-)

The easy answer to your request is that he has presented no equations to debunk, no scientific paper to rebutt, and no physics that is testable by evidence.

What concerns me, as I've said, is that there are so many people who believe he's some revolutionary scientist (or even any sort of scientist) when the evidence is clear that he's not. If he's not a scientist, then a scientific rebuttal isn't really appropriate. So that's a bit of a conundrum.

I've made several very general points about his paper, each one of which should be enough to constitute a sweeping dismissal of his approach.

You're right - ideally I would love to go through the paper line by line, and explain, in technical detail, precisely why I disagree with his arguments.

But, as I said above, I doubt that anyone with any grasp of the theoretical concepts that he parrots in his Schwarzschild Proton paper would require me to explain why it's garbage.

I'm not in a great hurry to expend a lot of time slaving over a long, technical rebuttal for someone who I don't actually believe exists.

I may be wrong. If there is someone out there who understands the "physics" in Haramein's paper, who thinks Haramein is correct, and who is able to communicate in the language of physics, then please introduce yourself. I've seen no evidence yet for any such person. (From your comment, JT, it doesn't sound like your concern is scientific truth - it looks more like the obnoxious language of an indignant cult member. Sorry, but it does - I'm not implying that you are one, just that that's the language you've chosen to address me with.)

I'd love to engage with such an individual, in the language of physics. If you're out there, please do introduce yourself using the language that Haramein uses in his paper, and I'll very happily follow suit.

I'd love to discuss in more detail, for example, the physics behind any of the three points I raised in section 2 above, with someone who has some reason to believe Haramein is correct.

So give me your reason, JT, and let's talk! :-)

JT said...

Excuse me? You don't have the time? Dude, Not only have you put hours upon hours into this website, but you have have put hours upon HOURS into counter arguments on YouTube videos in regards to Nassim, yet, alas, no mathmatical rebutal.

Why not put the debate to rest and simply provide a mathmatical rebutal? Are you a scientist? If yes, then perhaps you should start acting like one instead of calling everyone that like Haramein's theories idiots while offering a rebutal within the same sphere and on the same level of intellectual discourse.

How many hours have you put into this website? How many countless hours have you spent on YouTube calling everyone that supports Nassim a moron and an idiot?

You're a scienties.... riiiiiiiiiiight!

JT said...

You are the one claiming that everyone is an idiot, so the burden of proof lies with you to support your claims, and, as you claim to have a deep knowledge of physics, and you claim to be a scientist, such a rebutal should be scientific in nature; meaning, lets see some mathmatical rebutal.

What you are saying is nothing more than a cop-out, an excuse, as any objective observer of this website would extrapolate.

This is an absolute no-brainer: If you want a credible rebutal, and you have gone so far as to create a website, then lets see such a rebutal; thus far, it's just not there, and until you provide a serious scientific rebutal, the weigh of your arguments are feathers bro. You know it, I know it, and any serious inquirer into your arguments know it.


JT said...

Of course, the logical answer to the reason as to why you haven't provided such a mathmatical rebutal to his claims is because you simply to have the knowledge, skill and expertise to provide such a rebutal. Am I wrong? You seem to have put much, much effort into this site. You even replied to my post within five minutes! Obviously, any rational human being would come to this same conclusion.

If this conclusion is indeed correct; that in fact you don't posses the expertise to provide a proper scientific rebutal via his equations, then you indeed don't posses the relevant and necessary expertise to provide any rebutal at all.

What are your thoughts?

JT said...

If you were indeed an objective scientist, then in your arguments I wouldn't be observing a slippery slope of ad hominem attacks.

If you were a serious and honest scientist, then why wouldn't you rebut Nassim mathmatically, and open up a line of dialogue with him via email to discuss your findings with him?

Then, if you were truly concerned with the truth of the matter, rather than building up your ego through petty name-calling, you would publish such correspondence for all to see. This is how real science and the academic community operates, whether in science, politics, economics, or any area of academia.

This is what serious people do. What you are doing is nowhere close to following any sort of academic protocols and mutual respect. This is the problem with the academic community in general; a bunch of dinosaurs that think they are gods gift to academia and any contrary theory or belief is ridiculed through straw man attacks and ad hominems.

Get serious man.

JT said...

What you are doing here with this website is so completely unscientific and accompishes absolutely nothing.

Loek said...

Hi Bob and James,

There are two points. The first one entertainment, passing through the smile I had while reading his statement. I hope you liked the consequences of applying logical reasoning to this statement. How natural the statement might be, how unexpected the result of strictly applying the statement to itself. Applying any statement to itself is how you English say 'the proof of the pudding'. Almost one hundred years ago Edmund Husserl tried to overcome the problem of this natural statement and tried to establish the prove of scientifical thought on the use of logic. He failed and had to admit that intersubjectivity is the closest a community can get to establish truth.
The next point that I disagree with this statement. It oversimplifies what is science greatly. I think scientifical thinking is more a mentality and attitude then using one certain method. Corroboration and falsification are far more important then the use of mathematics. So far Bob has pointed out precisely on these points that the work of Nassim is not up to scientifical standards. That was how he could convince me easily. Math can be impressive, but to what is it referring? With math it can be proven that 1+1=3 or whatever other number. To show that the maths of a theory is not correct does not prove the theory is incorrect. It shows that the math is incorrect. The simple fact that so far there never has been found any proton with a mass of several tons is a more substantial counter argument to Nassim Harameims line of thinking.

With kind regards,


Bob said...

JT dude, let's just clear up some of your mess.

I've never called anyone an idiot or a moron. I've never said I was a scientist (or that I'm not) - those who care about science and reason will be able to see for themselves whether or not I make sense. I've never set out to treat Haramein as if he were in academia (why would I do that?) I've put forward some arguments, and invited comment, and I've clearly said it isn't intended to convince anyone who's already made up their mind. And I didn't say I don't have any time, just that I don't want to waste it.

I've chosen to give my perspective in non-scientific terms because the only people I've ever come across who genuinely want to know whether or not Haramein is for real are non-scientific.

Even so, I have outlined several issues with Haramein's science, and I've gone into some detail about some of his mathematics.

If anyone has any scientific issue with any of the points I've outlined, then I'll welcome them and I'll respond in kind. I've given plenty of examples of where I think he's wrong, and I've not yet had a single comment disputing any of them.

JT, I'll say again, do you have any reason to believe Haramein is correct about anything where I've said he's wrong? If so, as I said, I'd be happy to hear it.

JT said...

Would you like that I went back to your posts on Nassim's videos where you on many occasions referred to people that were interested in Nassim's work as morons and idiots (although your comments were much more creative than this). Would you like for me to do that so that I can prove that you are lying about claiming to the contrary? It would be fairly easy for me to do that.

"those who care about science and reason will be able to see for themselves whether or not I make sense." Actually, those that actually KNOW about science would only technically be able to refute you if you provided a mathmatical basis for your refutations; you know this much, don't you? As I stated many times before, you only EVER address his laymens presentation and NEVER his scientific papers.

I have never claimed to be a scientist, and I have never claimed to ever believe in any of Nassim's theories, but, I am an academic myself of political science, with many friends that happen to be physicists, as well as PhD mathmaticians, and understand FULL well the proper means to any sort of scientific refutation that will hold ANY weight whatsoever.

I am not here to dispute the arguments that you have yet put forth, rather, I am here to state that your refutation is totally irelevant from any scientific stand point as you fail to address the real science of the matter (his equations in his scientific papers).

So, can I ask you a question... are you a scientist or not? Do you possess the scientific background that is relevant to make a real scientific refutation of Nassim's claims? Do you, or do you not? I believe that your lack thus far in providing such a refutation will suffice enough as an answer to such an inquiry, no?

And, indeed, as I pointed out before, if you don't possess such knowledge, skills and expertise, then, again, as I stated before, your website is a big waste of time and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

JT said...

How about this... Really refute one scientific claim in his equations... just one! Lets see some skills here that you so eloquently express in you dictates. Lets see it...dude.

How about you put your skills where your big ignorant mouth is? Can you do that please? Can you pleae stop wasting everyone's time and get to at least one ounce of substance on this whole waste of a blog.

Blah, blah, blah. Talk is so fucking cheap when it comes to science. If you don't have any math for us; if you don't have any real interest in the real science of the matter, then why are you wasting your time pandering to people that don't know any better; just as the non-scientist that appreciate Nassim's work don't know any better.

Again, you have obviously wasted hours upon hours name calling and providing nothing of scientific substance to stroke your own ego and feel good about yourself. Good job.

JT said...

And while I am not a scientist, I am completely willing to act as a middle man to pass off such refutations to some friends that possess the expertise to make a proper judgment on the validity of your claims, but, I really don't believe that that will be at all necessary, because it's quite obvious that you can't at all do that.

Please, tell me I'm wrong... please, shut me down from my ranting; make me look the fool. I'm begging you.

Loek said...

Dear JT,

As I have pointed out in my previous post a refutation using math really doesn't add any value. Math is such a powerful and lenient tool, that you can prove anything with it.
There is only one way to refute any scientifical work and that is by criteria set up by the scientist him/herself: 'if such and such a thing can never be found' or 'if this or that should happen' then my theory is falsified.
A proton that should have a weight of several tons and yet still must be found, that is exactly the type of criterion one should looking for. Math and its equations can be changed, the facts a theory predicts not. A truely scientifical refutation can never be accomplished using math. The only link between facts and the outcome of mathematical equations are associations of occurrences. It is never a proof. It is never a refutation.
To give you an example of the latter: in order to describe gravitation Newton had to invent a new form of mathematics. With the mathematics of his time, he could not perform the job nor could anyone else.

With kind regards,


Bob said...

My goodness, JT.

You'd like me to respond to you in a language you don't understand, and you think I should provide a mathematical refutation to someone's non-mathematical nonsense.

We're not going to agree, are we.

Bob said...

As you've asked so nicely, I've started on an analysis of Haramein's Schwarzschild Proton paper at the address below. I don't know when I'll add more to it, but I think it should be pretty convincing as it is. I'm sure you'll let me know if you disagree.

Aaron said...

a couple years ago I watched Nassim's 5 hour video on youtube. Well, first, after watching the hour and a half long video, I became interested enough to actually watch the long one. It definitely floored me. The next day I couldn't stop thinking about it, and tried to explain to everyone, without much luck, how the universe worked. What I found so surprising was how you could view the universe this way. Even though he's got me believing in ancient aliens and a bunch of possible wacky shit that you don't just start talking to people about. It's been a couple years now, and I revisited those videos, and I can still view it that way. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your skepticism and debunking (that's why I have come across this blog, to open up to skepticism). You haven't falsified anything really for me, but please keep at it. Perhaps it is hard if science is still trying to explain a unified theory (which has to exist, otherwise it would explain God, BUT if it does exist, which it must, it doesn't exactly disprove God either).

Keep at it sir, please, but understand you are up against a viewpoint that every layman can grasp, and those with brains may disregard because their egos can't except something so fundamentally simple, and wish the universe a more complex place that only years and years of research to fuel that ego and inspire a constant infatuation with the Universes most minuscule things like the "strong force" or "God particle"

Perhaps it may be that in 2012, all this will be debunked and all of us will feel some sense of relief.

Aaron said...

oh and I wanted to mention, some of my skepticism is based on his research with Marko Rodin, I think that guy is a weirdo and thought of his shit as more mathamagic than anything, but to be fair i didn't watch all of his lengthy video, he has a agitating character and his arms are real hairy.

Also my skepticism of Nassim could be based on this video

regardless, i'm still thinking along the lines of his Unified theory


Bob said...

Hi Aaron

I think there are two separate viewpoints here.

The first is the science, the physics, of what Haramein says. Let me be very clear here. Haramein claims to be a physicist, he claims that he has "found the equations that prove that there is a black hole in every atom". But his physics is just appalling, it doesn't matter how you look at it.

This isn't a matter of anyone's egos not accepting his ideas. Personally, I'd love it if someone had a simple theory of the universe, and so would the majority of scientists. But don't give me one that blatantly contradicts nature! That's not going to do it for me.

Look at his Schwarzschild Proton paper. Without even going into any physics, he is saying straight out that a single proton has a mass of 8.85x10^14gm, which is 885 million tons. He uses his theory to calculate the force holding a proton in a nucleus, and his answer is 7.49x10^47 dynes, which is trillions of times higher than the impact force of a large asteroid hitting the Earth. It's blatantly obvious that this is wrong. You can see it right there on the page. And that's before you even investigate his model, as I did at (please do have a browse of that page), which just uncovers more and more naive nonsense and wrong physics.

There have been 46 comments (not including my replies) on these posts, and not one has challenged any of the science. Haramein's physics theories are just blatantly wrong, from ANY scientific viewpoint. I hope that's clear. It's just bollocks. Simple as.

The second viewpoint is subjective, rather than objective. Many people disapprove of this tyranny of scientific objectivity; they long for ideas that resonate with the soul, and I can relate to this. When you hear a presentation of an idea, it can have a profound effect on you. If an idea, or a new paradigm, grabs you, it could even transform your life. What you do with this is then of course up to you. If someone's happy to accept without investigating, just because it's had such a strong effect, then fair enough.

If blind faith isn't enough for you, then you might explore the ideas a bit more, and then you have to weigh up reasoning and common sense with your feelings. If you're just not interested in reasoning (or common sense), or if you believe that the strength of your feelings for Haramein's ideas outweighs all the reasons to dismiss them, then of course you'll hold onto his ideas.

My personal view is that holding onto an idea just because it made you feel good, when there are plenty of reasons why it's rubbish, is a pretty shoddy way to live.

But, as I've said before, some people value what they happen to like the sound of far higher than reasoning or common sense. If it makes them feel transcendental then it must be true, and that beats any argument.

Even if the guy selling these ideas is making scientific claims about himself and his theories that are easily shown to be manipulative lies.

Of course, that's up to you.

Some people think it's open-minded to hold onto these ideas. But this holding on is a closed grasp that shuts us off from reality. The open-minded person keeps looking for the truth, and is always ready to let go of things and look at them afresh from many different angles to see if they are true or false.

Don't expect someone else to convince you enough to make you let go. There's no way I can compete with how tightly some people hold on to an idea.

Always let go. If we're not prepared to let go then we'll never see.

Adam said...


Thanks for hosting this omnibus, it's a fascinating discussion and an imprtant territory to deal with. As someone with minimal tech. knowledge but a lot of curiosity, and who has variably walked back and forth across those lines of 'real' and 'fantastic/renegade' scientific speculation, it's nice to read these exchanges in a respectful, intelligent forum.

Bob said...

Thanks Adam

Aleksandar said...

I'm interested in Nassims (i dont know if this is his original idea, but ...) infinite universe in both ways, macro and micro ...

It seems from our wiev point, that universe is infinitley big, and infinitley small, because we dont se and on any side.

Now if i understood right, because this idea cannot be tested, it has no value?

Can you give me more information about this? Thanks.

Loek said...

Hi Alexander,

Logically, there should be an upper and lower limit on the scales of the universe, otherwise one would end in a homunculus argument.

How tantalizing the idea of eternal fractal layering might be, there must be somewhere sometime a smallest unit in order to avoid the homunculus problem.
And the fact there will be a smallest unit in the universe is IMHO even more amazing then the fact that it is layered into eternity.

With kind regards,


Aleksandar said...

Hi Loek,

as i understood, this homunculus argument is valid when something is observed, in the means of the observer, not the thing that is observed. (english is not my native language, i dont know did i put this right, i hope u undestand).

Why would we have this problem in observing universe?

So, to rephrase mu question, do anybody have some info that can negate or support idea of infinitley small and infinitley big universe, because as we can see, there is no end on any side?

I have no problem in accepting smallest particle if we find it, but this other idea is also very interesting, and it is not (as i am aware) in oposition with any other popular theory?

Loek said...

Hi Aleksandar,

The homunculus argument is about regression into infinity using the same phenomena to explain some phenomena. It is known from the situation of theories about the mind, but it applies equally well to the infinite regression of the universe.

Think this way: if you have a level, then you can go to a smaller level. If you are at that level, you can go to a smaller level. If you are at that level, you can go to a
smaller level into infinity. That is exactly the same regression into infinity as the homunculus argument. Now it is not a homunculus, but a fractal layer. In both arguments the same type of phenomena is used to explain the phenomena.

The idea that one can always go to a smaller level is in contradiction with quantum mechanics, which has the postulate that there is level below which no one can go. I thought quantum mechanics is a quite popular theory today.:-)

I thought it is still at debate in what type of universe we live in. Science does not know yet for sure if the universe will collapse or not. When it will collapse, it will have a maximum size obviously.

Bob, do you agree?

With kind regards,


Bob said...

Hi Aleksandar and Loek

Nassim's idea that the universe is fractal, that every dot contains a universe and that our universe is a dot in another universe, is not a new one. There are lots of such theories. My favourite is Lee Smolin's "Fecund Universes Theory" (Wikipedia has a description), which suggests a way in which universes could 'evolve'.

It's a nice idea, but whether it has any value is another matter. If a theory predicts that nothing in one universe can ever effect another, then it is fairly worthless, at least in terms of science. There is no way it can be evaluated.

If effects across universes are allowed in a theory, then the goal has to be to work out what these could be, and then to try to find them. Some people have multiverse theories that might be testable - often by exploring how other universes might have shaped our Big Bang. It's possible that predictions could come from these multiverse theories, and that these could be shown to hold true, even if our universe has been entirely isolated since the Big Bang. I guess we'll see.

Haramein doesn't do any of this, of course - he just likes the idea. And to back it up, he gives a story of how he saw it in his mind's eye while sitting on a bus at the age of 9. His pseudoscientific method is always to search for things that seem to confirm what he imagines to be true, and to dismiss any facts that conflict with it. This is clear for anyone watching his videos to see. So I don't think he has anything to contribute to this.

Regarding the homunculus argument, I think Aleksandar is right - it is a logical fallacy in theories of perception, and doesn't apply to fractal universes. It concerns the nature of subject viewing object, and can be used to show that some theories of subject/object lead to an infinite logical regress. It's not relevant to an infinite physical situation. There COULD be a universe in every atom. If there are no effects, then how could we know? The idea easily degenerates into empty speculation. What happens to these universes if the atoms they're "in" find themselves in the core of a supernova? Who knows. Unless a theory has detail as to the connections between universes, its value is questionable.

If there is a smallest scale, such as the Planck length, then that is something that applies within our universe. There is no need for it to apply in the same way in another universe. And if it did, then it could easily fit inside a point in our universe by using other dimensions. So I doubt there will ever be a way of logically disproving speculations like these.

Regarding our universe - I think most scientists are fairly sure now that it cannot collapse. The reason is dark energy. Even those who don't believe there is dark energy at least can see that something appears to be making the universe expand at an accelerated rate. So time-wise, there seems to be no limit. Size-wise, we can only see to a certain distance, even theoretically - this corresponds to looking back in time to the Big Bang itself. And there is a limit to the furthest we can EVER see in an accelerating universe - the "comoving future visibility limit". No physical effect from beyond this limit can ever reach us. Most theories of the Big Bang suggest that the universe should be at least thousands of times larger than this limit - possibly far, far bigger. The smoothness of the cosmic microwave background, for example, suggests (from inflation theory, which is accepted by the majority of cosmologists) that what we see is a tiny patch of something far larger. But who knows.

Loek said...

Hi Alexander and Bob,

What a theory of the universe. The longer I thought of it, the more imaginable it became. Never provable however.

Would Smolin not agree with Haramein, because it delivers him a lot of black holes supporting his theory? (Just kidding.)

I agree with you, that when dimensions can change along the way the homunculus argument does not apply. I assumed however that the use of fractals implies an infinite regression of the same type of dimensions. Otherwise there is somewhere a 'quantum leap' to another formula, which can not be predicted by the fractal. In other words, the fractal would stop itself. But that is just what a fractal is not doing.
I would never think about new dimensions to make it possible to have another universe inside every atom. I believe that matter has these characteristics, because it creates a stable universe. An atom is stable because a proton has its size, weight and charge in comparison to a neutron and electron. When the electron would have a different charge or weight, then protons and neutrons should be different as well to create stable atoms. Therefor do I believe that in any universe there is a smallest scale. But that has at least the assumption that all universes are constructed more or less the same and using atoms.
That leaves open the possibility that inside every atom there are other universes, but so far no one has found any. They did find other things though, but I guess they were not looking for other universes at that time. I think that one can proof for this universe simply pointing to the Planck length, that infinite regression is not possible.

With kind regards,


Steven said...

I'm an Electrical Engineer (Bachelor's) with a keen interest in modern physics which I have followed for 30yrs. I just want to point out a couple things that occurred to me watching Mr. Haramein's presentation.

First of all the idea that an electron might be a black hole was investigated by Einstein himself who discarded it. Of course at the time he was unaware of the nature of the strong nuclear force, which I don't think I ever heard Haramein mention. Maybe he did; it was a long presentation. But the point is he certainly didn't think it up when he was 10 years old.

I also heard him on the "Theatre of the Mind" podcast. He has a good talent for throwing around scientific jargon in ways that sound good at first blush. He had me going for a while when he started talking about a self-organizing principle in the universe and that it's NOT matter that makes up our universe it's really SPACE, and that matter/energy are a result of vortices in a twisting space-time manifold. Well folks he didn't think of that himself either and in the end he really didn't know where to go from simply stating it other that to move on to ideas like synchronicity and that all points in the universe are somehow connected. He threw in words like "quantum entanglement" and "Zero Point Energy" for effect.

Also, his readiness to move from physics to Cabalistic mysticism, Numerology, and, of all things, his ideas on the significance of the true name of God in the Bible quickly read as self-promoting charlatan to me. Genetists now know that Homo Sapiens mated with Neanderthals and that our genome carries about 4% of the other's. That is significant. But I haven't heard of any genetics that would indicate a gap in our evolution as Haramein suggests which would have come from mating with aliens. And if aliens have been around all these thousands of years and were able to mate with humans then where are they in the fossil record. A couple oversized or malformed skulls don't prove anything.

If you want to read some maverick ideas from serious scientists who can really do the math try "The Comprehensible Cosmos by Victor Stenger who shows how the laws of physics can all be derived from a single idea - "Point of View Invariance". How's that for simple? Or read some Roger Penrose. But be ready to do some serious thinking for yourself.

I really had a good time watching and listening to the guy but he's a complete flake and all the fools (Please forgive me but its true.)paying their good money to attend his conferences and support his Resonance Project are simply financing him to sit on the beach in Hawaii in between tours, sucking down margaritas like a black hole I imagine.

Lastly, if you want to read some really far out and mind bending ideas about the nature of space time, what might have come before the big bang, and multiple universes try, "The Fabric of the Cosmos" and "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Green. Trust me, he will blow yor mind light years beyond Haramein, but once again be prepared to do some serious thinking instead of being bamboozled with slick talk.

Best Regards,

Keenan said...

To Bob et al,

My technical education is in finance, accounting, business etc. I have taken upper-level theoretical astronomy and astrobiology courses at University but don't have a true "formal" education. Here is my take on where all of the scientists in the world need to start...

Most of the foundation our modern science is based off of Einstein's postulations and several other "great scientists" from antiquity up til' circa 1950. Einstein's ideas were co-opted from the theorems of several of Tesla's contemporaries in the Former Yugoslavian Republic. Honestly modern science is a joke and so is our emerging "global" culture. The public is completely in the dark and will remain that way until free thinking individuals have the balls to challenge the status quo.

Tesla was the only modern day scientist who had his finger on the pulse of the true nature of our "physical" reality. Edison, the scientific hack, finally admitted at the twilight of his career that he should have listened to Tesla who was far superior in intellect. Further more Tesla had a great body of work (not just a bunch of theories like Albert Einstein). Tesla's conception of our world ran counter to Einstein's and that is why he called Albert a mental midget and a plagiarist on many occasions.

If you really think the global perspective of science that is taught at University is accurate than you are a fool. No one with a monocum of power would let such explosive research go on in a free thinking format. That is too dangerous for any established power base.

That is why all of Tesla's work was gathered up by the United States Department of Defense upon his death. That is why we don't learn Teslonian science from primary school through University. In fact there is almost no mention of him in our books, NO MENTION OF THE MAN WHO CREATED A/C... That is why Einstein's work was so heavily published everywhere. At a time when all of our government's were working towards nuclear armament in order to blow the living hell out of each other, doesn't anyone find it quite odd that all of his "cutting edge postulations" were allowed to be exhibited to the public. Einstein is a mere pupit. If you think that any scientist of his day would be allowed to galavant their ideas to the public then you are mad.

The foundations of our modern day science are shaky at best...

Haramein has some ideas that are really far out there. If you guys want to actually do something for science get off your ass and go talk to Haramein. Drop him an email. Iron sharpens Iron. Maybe he isn't a Charlatan. Maybe his work has holes/inconsistencies in it and some of your questions/criticisms may help our current scientific models to evolve.

We have been stuck in a rut for a very long time. Honestly, the reason Tesla's work is withheld is because his work is applicable. He is one of the biggest patent holders in the United States. Don't get me started on what a true comprehension of his body of work would have meant for us today...

We would have true renewable, clean energy, independent from a centralized power grid driven off of fossil fuels.

All you sceintists need to get off your but and go petition the United States government to release Tesla's work so that our nation can move forward scientifically. Riddle me this, what inventions, practical applications of Einstein's work was he involved in???? A FRIGGIN REFRIGERATOR, thats all the idiot could muster. Are you kidding me.........He is attributed with the Atom bomb. But it is historical fact that he wasn't even involved with the Manhattan project, his science was purely theoretical....It is the reason that we can't currently reconcile quantam level physics. Because Einstein was dead wrong.

Bob said...


Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Remarkably, in all that writing there isn't a single sentence that is true or accurate. Not one. It's quite an achievement. What the bejesus have you been reading?

(No, wait, here's one - "Haramein has some ideas that are really far out there" - that does have a ring of truth to it. I'll let you have that one.)

Here's something for you. Please check out the brilliant set of articles in this week's New Scientist:

Perhaps you'll feel unable to accept any of it - you may believe that it's written by idiots or that it's all part of some conspiracy... fair enough... but just see if you can allow that there may be some very serious truth in it. Read it, give it some thought.

And please don't comment further here unless it's directly about Haramein. You can email me if you wish.

Steven said...

To Keenan,

Was that rant of yours serious or are you pulling our collective leg? Did you say you took upper level courses in Astronomy or Astrology?

I won't waste much more space on your particular form of insanity. Like Bob said almost everything you wrote was wrong.

Sadly, you like so many of our fellow Americans like to think you are privy to some "special knowledge" that 300 years of scientific investigation has pretty much proven wrong. You are perfect for a guy like Haramein. Pull out your check book.

Oh, and I have some prime swamp land in southern Louisiana I'd love to talk to you about. Sheesh (pressing hand firmly to forehead) give us a break and not post here any more. We prefer to hear from folks whose IQ doesn't make a good golf score.

Celestial said...

Hi, though I do not agree with Nassim Haramein, that we live in a black hole, I do see a more spiritual presentation for Cosmology based on a Relativity Ratio.

you can see some info at

see what you think.
PS again, please share your thoughts.

Bob said...

I've never really understood why anyone would want to replace the things that we've found out about the universe with things that someone's made up.

If you want to know when the local shop is open, do you make it up according to a divine formula based on a random mixture of ancient texts, or do you go out and look at the times listed in the window?

Finding out is underrated. It's actually quite a useful concept.

Thanks for the link though. I like pictures of neutron stars.

Anonymous said...

Guille: I don't recall ever having heard of Oxford University being referred to as "the" Oxford University. Also, Oxford does not offer masters level programs in "physics," but in various subsets of physics, such as astrophysics. One can say anything online without having to prove a word.
Nassim's blog sounds like the ramblings of your run-of-the-mill cult leader. I, for one, have no interest in becoming an "Emissary" for the resonance program, whatever that is. It sounds suspiciously like an attempt to create a catchy new-age, pseudo-scientific name in order to separate the gullible from their money.

DS said...

Bob:I've never really understood why anyone would want to replace the things that we've found out about the universe with things that someone's made up.

Bob, your patience is infinite! I admire your effort to show people what is right with patience, logic and empathy.

However, you have to understand that people that believe (key word: believe) in this BS can't even do long division by hand, let alone high school physics or, gasp, calculus. So, in their mind - and I don't blame them - BS presented by the lunatic gentleman and rigorously tested scientific models and theories are the same. You're just disadvantaged because you are trained in thought, you are schooled in contrast to that gentleman, and to your target audience. That means you are coming of as snobbish and arrogant, because you are schooled and smart, which they aren't. I'm not being rude here, it's just that they feel attacked by the mere fact of it.

I always wondered why people that don't understand any of math/physics are prepared to take theories, they don't understand or know nothing about, for granted.

Science is definitely not about "we know everything, shut yer filthy mouth" stance. If it were, there would be no science left to do. Scientists are the exact opposite guys, we pretend we know nothing. Idea is worth shit. Empirical evidence backs idea, testing that idea brings merit to it. This gentleman's idea was tested (via math and logic) and it failed on basic arithmetic (rounding error for example), let alone ludicrous axioms.

Thanks for great read and comedy!

From a fellow scientist.

The Resonance Project Foundation said...

Dear Bob-a-thon,
Mr. Haramein has posted a reply to your general comments, criticism and attempt at character assassination which can be found on our blog at this address We have received criticism from other researchers in the field of physics and have interacted with them in helping them understand our views in a constructive and positive manner. Your lack of direct address with our foundation and our researchers demonstrates a fundamental lack of professionalism, and your offensive language in many of your posts around the internet has been abrasive to the much-needed collaborative spirit required at this time in history. Here we will appeal to your proclaimed pursuit of the truth and expect that you will post these links as a reply from Mr. Haramein in the main body of your posts. It is our hope that we can enter into a constructive more positive interaction.
The Resonance Project Foundation

Bob said...

Hi, The Resonance Project Foundation

Thank you for your response to some of the criticisms I've presented here. I'm sure it will come as some comfort to people who really want Nassim to be right.

Nassim is keen to cast me as the authoritarian schoolteacher who squishes out all creativity from his poor students, or the closed-minded educated fool who's unable to recognise a true genius... and meanwhile he (predictably) continues to compare himself to Einstein, again and again.

If that's the image he'd like to cultivate for his followers, then he's done a great job – well done Nassim.

Am I really a "reactionary defending the status quo", who "proclaims himself and his institution the beholder of the truth and the only truth as if the standard model was complete and a done deal." I don't think I even mention the standard model. Or an 'institution'. Where does it all come from.

As I've said before, there's a crucial difference between the inability or unwillingness to recognise brilliant new ideas, and the ability to see when someone's blagging it and to explain why. Conveniently blurring the lines and insinuating the former seems a pretty cheap response to me, but I guess it's up to whoever's reading to come to their own conclusions.

The most important thing is whether or not Nassim has actually addressed any of the overwhelming flaws that I've outlined. What can I say. It hardly looks that way.

He's certainly thrown the book at it. There's a lot of talk, a lot of excuses, a lot of blurring, and a lot of clever-looking confusion. Some of it refers to good science, but in the usual sidelong way that tries to imply that it supports Nassim's theories when it does no such thing. Lots of words and concepts are misused. I wouldn't know where to start addressing them, and I don't intend to. But I'm glad it's there, so we can see what an explanation from Nassim's team would look like.

If you find it convincing, then good luck to you.

As I made clear from the start, I've never set out to convince those who've already made up their minds. I've certainly never set out to get into any kind of argument with Mr Haramein and his institution. It hardly seems fruitful. Is that 'unprofessional'? Or is this unprofessional? I'm quite happy to debate with people who present new ideas with some flaws but a genuine striving for the truth. When it's clear that someone's blagging it, that hardly seems appropriate.

I'm no self-promotionalist. All I can do is try to explain the way that I see the situation, and hope that it is of some help to people who are genuinely interested.

If anyone wants to discuss any particular issues from this, I'll be happy, as ever, to do so.

james said...

ok. gonna just jump in a bit here, after having read up to april 20th.
so apologies if what i say has since been discussed.

you (bob) say that Nassim's arguments are circular in nature. but isn't everything? scientific investigation works by making predictions about things. but these predictions affect what can be observed. so all science can be thought of as circular, our picture of reality simply reflecting what we've set out to prove/disprove.

you also talk about objective "truth" and "reality".
this is as if reality is something existing independently of our minds. kind of like when descartes suggested that our minds exist independently of physical substance.

I think there is much more of an interaction between observer and observed than you seem to assume.
you can't separate yourself from the rest of the universe without things getting a bit confused eventually.

also, the idea that the universe is NOT infinitely divisible seems rather short sighted to me. like scientists claiming that the atom was the smallest thing possible?
the "planck length" may just be the smallest unit of distance that our mathematics can handle. this does not disprove infinite regression.

Nassim had a vision whilst sitting on a bus at the age of 9. visions of this kind are usually dismissed as being simply imagination. but what is the universe but a product of our own imagination?
everything we "percieve" is ideas in our minds. we never break through to the supposed "origin" of perceptions.
so it doesn't seem ridiculous to me that someone could have a vision that was actually highly informative about the structure of reality.

by the way, i'm not particularly trying to provide a support for Nassim, nor am i particularly trying to have a go at you. i don't know a huge amount about him, i've only recently come across his ideas. it just seems to me that reality isn't entirely explained by the current paradigm of science, as we are much more intimately connected to the universe than we realise.

james said...

by the way, i'm a different james to the other one in this discussion...

james said...

oh, and what Nassim claims to be trying to do: unifying branches of philosophy, science, religion and mysticism, is pretty much the only way we're going to end up with a complete picture of reality. i think.

Bob said...

Hi James

Physics - and science in general - is the study of what appears to be the objective content of reality. Most physicists tend to leave the matter of whether or not it "is" objective for philosophers to argue over. What matters to me is that the universe sure as hell acts like there's an objective reality.

To give a basic physics example - gravity is pretty independent of how we feel about it or perceive things. It doesn't matter what's going on in your mind, my friend, if I throw you off the top of a 10m high building, you're going to go down. That's a pretty objective looking situation.

Ok, not everybody will have an identical experience of falling in that situation, but there are some things that seem to be true for everybody. They all go down, they all hit the floor in about the same amount of time.

We can make a theory about how long it takes to hit the floor... maybe even a theory with equations in it, like t=√(2s/a). What's an equation got to do with reality? Well, the equation says you that you'll hit the floor in 1.4 seconds; and if you try it out, then you find that you do hit the floor in 1.4 seconds.

You can try it as many times as you like, and even use different heights, but if the equation gives the same answer as the real world, then I think that means it reflects objective reality in some way.

The main point of physics - at least in its most fundamental sense - is to find equations like these, that reflect reality, and to try to learn something from them.

Of course there's a subject, and we need to know about that too, especially where they interact and 'entangle'. But there are plenty of things that we can learn by observing it as if it's objective. Throwing people off roofs is one example. And the properties of a proton is another example.

Any theories about the nature of a proton have to respect the fact that we can take any proton, measure it in various ways, observe what it does in various situations, and it always follows certain patterns. There's something real, and objective, there.

Haramein unfortunately dismisses these observed properties - his theory conflicts with what we already know to be the case. So it's fairly straightforwardly wrong.

This - hopefully - you can see is one problem that can arise if you get a vision of reality on a bus. You might come up with a great-sounding idea, and get very excited about it, and even get lots of other people excited about it - but if it disagrees with things that we can consistently observe in the world around us, then it doesn't reflect reality.

The origin of perceptions is important, of course, but the fact that there is much we don't understand about consciousness or about our subjective experience needn't stop us from exploring the nature of the universe as best we can. And especially for those aspects of the nature of the universe that have these highly objective qualities, we can use science to come to some very profound understandings.

You're right that unifying things is a good idea. If Nassim wants to unify science with anything, the one thing he must not do is to create a theory which blatantly conflicts with the things we can already observe, or to argue that we should replace a scientific theory that works extremely well with one that doesn't work at all. This is what Nassim does, and this is the reason for this criticism.

Does that make sense? (Please read and think through carefully before you answer - that took me ages!)

Thanks for the question :)

Anonymous said...

I appreciate your effort but something is not right.

You have this weird fascination that he must go through the schooling system for him to be creditable in your eyes....That is a major fail.

You teachers have failed the students of this nation because you care more about ideology then TRUTH. You don't TEACH anything. YOU REPEAT WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT.

And then you added this comment

"(a) because the scientific establishment are afraid of having all their precious theories overturned?

Science loves having theories overturned. "

No. Science does not like to have theories overturned. They can't even keep an open mind about god or a creator and you expecet that SCIENCE loves to have their theories overturned?

Just like they were overturned with CLIMATEGATE. Right?

instead of directly attacking his theories you have only attacked his character.

I think we know who the fraud is don't we?

DoctorGlen said...

I have heard it said that it is now the consensus understanding of physicists that the universe is perceptual in nature, not physical. The concept of the universe as a set of nested vortices is certainly appealing enough to stimulate further contemplation, even if there is no such thing as a singularity. Don't all known particles appear, and disappear from our perceptual space, in pairs, like two wings of the same angel (thought by their Creator) described as quantum entanglement? Einstein's relativity theory began as a vision, a sensory 'aha' experience, and then it took him some years to put this into expressive language of mathematics to be able to clearly communicate this vision to other scientists. Tesla apparently received many visions, and his mental constructs were remarkably fruitful, with a high degree of accuracy in their application, such as the fully functional construction of the first AC power plant at Niagara Falls with zero changes from his design. Such visionary science is quite a different process from, for example, Edison's plodding through 1000 failed light bulb designs to find one that worked... Some speculate that he saw a working design in Tesla's laboratory, and thus KNEW there would be a way... otherwise, what was his motivation? It is said that Marconi's radio patents were similarly stimulated by seeing technology already in use by Tesla. Whether or not Nassim's vision of black holes within and without this universe are correct, there is no doubt that we do not understand our universe or the observed data about it fully, or there would be no challenge to finding an elegant model to explain it all, as well as to offer insight into a higher order of technology than our present reliance on non-renewable resources and processes which threaten the life sustaining environment of our biosphere. I am interested in exploring theories such as Bose-Einstein condensates (now accepted and proven to exist) and Superlight (the second solution to Maxwell's equation for electromagnetism, which may unify understanding of the multiple forces of physics). Any thoughts??

james said...


but reality being a phenomenon of your own imagination would not rule out repeatable, predictable phenomena, such as things always falling down. thought processes follow patterns just like nature.

the main point of contention i think is the idea that there is an "objective reality".
now i don't entirely refute the idea of an objective reality, (as that in itself would be to create an objective mindset about reality,)
but i don't think reality is objective either.

although of course the idea of an objective reality is a useful idea, and can yield successful predictions. but it's still just an idea of objective reality.
and working with the idea that reality is objective, you will only ever find evidence that reality is objective.

anyway, science is useful and it works, to an extent.

if nassim wants to try and figure out different reality models, then let him. if they're completely useless, they wont survive long as ideas.

people can think whatever they want, and if they're set on believing what nassim has figured out, then anything you say here to criticise him will only make them feel more righteous.

so what if it's pseudoscience?

willhelm reich was driven to his grave by people who zealously persecuted him for his "unscientific" methods.
but he only had good intentions.

Bob said...

Anonymous (9th July): I'm not sure what you've been reading, but it doesn't seem to be anything I've written. Fascination with schooling system? Repeating what I've been taught? Attacking his character not his theories? Amazing what people can end up thinking they've read.

Bob said...

Doctor Glen: "it is now the consensus understanding of physicists that the universe is perceptual in nature, not physical" - no, sorry, that's not remotely true.

"Any thoughts?" - well I'm not sure what any of your comment has to do with Haramein, apart from I think you fall into the usual trap of thinking that our understanding of the physical world is all vague and full of holes and mysteries. People say ah, well we don't really know anything anyway. (What they mean is that they don't know really anything anyway. It's never too late to learn!)

Of course we don't know everything - that's why physicists keep doing stuff - but we do know a lot of things (we've had lots of extremely clever people doing lots of stuff for a long time, you know). Indeed, we know some of them extremely well and unambiguously.

So if some guy comes along with a theory that blatantly disagrees with things that are very well known, then surely his theory is seriously flawed? If it disagrees with LOTS of such things, as Haramein's theories do, then it becomes simply crazy when people keep defending them.

Bob said...

James: you don't have to believe in an objective reality if you don't want to. But in many ways it sure as hell behaves as if it's objective - and that behaviour is what physicists study.

You're right that Nassim's followers will believe what they like. Fair enough. He does claim to be a serious scientists, though... and some people think he is. So the fact that it's pseudo nonsense that has no bearing on physical reality is pretty important.

I don't think I'm driving anyone to their grave. With a bit of luck this kind of debate will help drive him further into his little protective bubble, populated by folks who like the way he talks and are oblivious as to what science has been doing over the last few hundred years. I hope they all live happily ever after in there. They're not a bad bunch. Just a bit naive.

Loek said...

Hi James,

I react on your statement that it is short sighted to disprove infinite regression.
You are absolutely right that the atom and the planck length are no disproves of infinite regression. However, I see it as a logical problem: how do you define the difference between nothing and something? If you do or do not believe in an objective universe, we all believe in something. Something exists. Even if you believe that no matter really exists, one normally at least believes that a consciousness exists. Anyhow, something exists.
The ultimate border between nothing at all and something has somehow crossed. That is totally mind boggling to me. Base of all my wondering, curiosity, consciousness and amazement about life. Infinite regression implies to me that there is no real difference between nothing at all and something. That this ultimate border can be crossed fluently. Or that this border does not exist at all?
The difference between them is in my opinion the disprove of infinite regression. I think this difference is inevitably a kind of quantum leap. If you can show me a gradual change from nothing at all to something, then I might change my mind. Until then I do not believe in infinite regression as a realistic possibility.

With kind regards,


james said...

bob, i know the universe behaves as if it's objective.
but as i said, that's because we come at it expecting it to be objective.
the universe is very good at reflecting what we want to see.
and by the way, i understand the basics of physics and scientific practice, i've been studying it for the past two years.

why do you want to drive him into his bubble? if he's out in the open, isn't it easier to see the supposed faults in his model? i just think it's not right to be trying to outdo him, if you don't think he's a real scientist, then don't engage with his ideas.

to loek:

yes, a difficult problem, isn't it?
completely head-bending.
oh yes, something does definitely exist, of course. i wouldn't refute that.

the fact that something exists, but is in infinite regression is the fundamental paradox. things have to be infintely divisible, but at the same time can't be, as that defies the logical difference between something and nothing. i think the universe exists in a state of both existing and not-existing at the same time. however, we're logically set up to make either-or differentiations, so that duality doesn't sit well with us.

there is an insolvable paradox at the very heart of existence...

Bob said...

James, I think we're actually agreeing that all we require in order for physics to be a serious and valuable subject is that reality consistently behaves as if it's objective.

The whole universe reflecting what we want stuff really does get pushed to the most ridiculous statements, though. If the universe is so good at reflecting what we want to see, and is only objective because we expect it to be, why can't we change our expectations about gravity and fly out of windows?

You're misunderstanding what I was saying about bubbles. Haramein's theories and presentations are all over the internet - there's never any difficulty for anyone in seeing them. That's why I think there's a need to explain why they're nonsense.

Haramein clearly has no intention of acknowledging any of this - he has an institution to defend and he wouldn't want to let his fans down. If he finds himself surrounded by scientifically illiterate New Age followers and less and less young people with a genuine budding interest in physics and a vulnerability to charisma, then that is all to the good.

Whatever happens, it's best that the information and the debates are out there and that he can be seen for what he is.

Anonymous said...

Hey Bob , you either must be stupid or stupid . A man really needs scientific support to be right about something ? A bunch of old idiots must agree with him so his theories come true ? Answer me to this : a musician is not a musician if he cannot read musical notes ? As far as i know , a musician can sing without reading musical notes . All i see is you going mad that he has no scientific support and that he doesn't know maths . I can see you never watched his videos and you don't understand a thing about quantum physics . Plus , you are a fraud ... you said you will show that article, and you never showed it .... cuz you are a big fraud trying to ruin this man's life-work . You know this guy had a brilliant idea at the age of 9 years old ? What do you have , Bob , scientific support ? =)) good luck with that ... if i were you , i would close this blog forever .... you scammer -> The Doctor

Loek said...

Hi Captain Nemo,

In French there is a proverb, which translates as 'it are the tones, which make the music'. If you look at the game Nassim Haramein is playing, then you will hear him say that quantum physics is not good, his theory is better and he himself is leading science. Nassim Haramain is willingly trying to ruin a lot of scientific careers and put himself on the very spot like Einstein and Newton. In English you have the proverb 'you will harvest, what you sew'. I think he should expect and accept criticism.

And indeed, as a musician is a musician when he can make some tones, a physicist is a physicist when he is able to make some maths.

With kind regards,


Anonymous said...

Don't give me kind regards loek . I see you are as narrow minded as Bob . Ok , lets take it different : THAT was a presentation . If you want people to understand a presentation , you don't start writing math formulas on a black board . You "explain" ( you ever heard of this word ? ) them in the simplest way possible . Don't give me stupid arguments and proverbs , trying to convince me this guy is a fraud just because he is arrogant . I don't care if he is arrogant as long as his ideas are brilliant . And what's you f*****g problem if he ruins some careers ? He brings the world in a new age . A few morons matter more than the entire planet ? The same thing happened with Nikola Tesla . A bunch of "kids" like you and Bob were making him fraud when he was showing the alternative current ( on those times , people taught a thunder was magical, and it was 100 years ago ) . I still don't understand whats you fking problem ? You bring no solid evidence that he is wrong and you don't even understand a thing !!! I bet you never watched his videos ! You are a bunch of idiots who still like to think stars are lights placed by the gods in the sky !! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS ! You deserve to be treated like animals ! Even worse ! Start thinking and bring solid arguments , not PopCorn gossip !! ( and captain nemo is your mom who i fk each night ) ->> The Doctor

Bob said...

How lovely.

Anonymous said...

You think so Bob ? cuz i just found a new hobby . Ill bring in arguments each day , bombarding you in each possible way , until you will bring just a bit of light in your dark brain . I spent 5 years of my life trying to seek the meaning of life . What have you done Bob in this time ? I can read 100 pages from a book / hour . Just do the maths ( i see your very fond of them ) and see the quantity of knowledge i possess . ->> The Doctor

james said...

wow Anon, be civil.
if you swear all the time it doesn't mean anything when you need the impact. if you think bob's a big fraud, you're being just as bad by being offensive and trying to wave the size of your supposed knowledge in his face.

Anonymous said...

Yeah james ? I don't see anything related to the subject in your comment . I already have a mom . Plus , idiots always make me go nuts .

Anonymous said...

I know you're talking about the physicspart of his idea.But even for me, who has almost no idea of all that stuff(but I wish someday ), there are things they don't make sense at all and I think you can't just come here and say Einstein and the other was wrong and I'm(Nassim) right!! without show any respect to those people and their theories wich are the bases of nowadays physics.
but all of you have to aggre to something: who built the pyramids?
doesn't make sense the egyptian(mayas, chinese etc) could...and all that stuff about the arch for me it make sense (and more than the myth they trying to make believe in for centuries)
what can you say about it? nothing because it isn't physics but interpretation(in bible case) but in pyramids case you've a FACT and that can be dissaprove whatever archoelogist can say about it.
my point is maybe Nassim's concept of physics is wrong but I think a lot o stuff he said about pyramids,bible etc...could be right

And also dear Bob may you explainme (for curiosity)what's that the sun is making, that 'pulse' something to say about? 'cause I understand the sun's period of min and max activity and all that but those 'pulses' are kind of intimidating at less..they should have any impact on earth. And if it's doing that in the minimal phase how would it be when the sun starts its max activity?

(sorry for the mistakes, my english is pretty poor but I do my best)

a simple curious person who try to understand like all of us what the hell it's going on all arround us

Bob said...

Hi Anonymous

I don't know about the pyramids. Those talks by Nassim have been around for about 7 years, though, and they don't seem to have caused a stir among archaeologists. If he was right about anything, then at least some of them would be very interested. If they could see straight away that he was wrong, then all would dismiss his ideas. It seems that the only people who think he could be right are the ones who don't understand archaeology.

Nassim warns us all of terrible things coming our way from the sun in 2012. You can find a better explanation in this video (but turn the sound off - their music is terrible!). There will be no apocalyptic solar pulses - in fact this solar cycle is predicted to be rather quiet.

We always get some electromagnetic pulses from the sun at the peak of every solar cycle (every 11 years), and they often cause some damage to satellites and electricity generating systems. It's a little like the hurricane season - it can cause damage, but we can usually see it coming.

The first sign is a period of a few days with more sunspots than usual, which means large solar flares are possible. If a large flare is seen on the sun, a pulse may follow a few minutes later.

We may be more vulnerable now, because of how much we rely on the internet and satellites, so it's certain to make the news at some point. When it does, my prediction is that the '2012 theorists' will get very excited and tell us their prophecies were right! But the activity of the sun and its ability to cause some disruption every 11 years is nothing new.

Good luck with making sense of the world around us. It's a noble quest! :)

Anonymous said...

So , Bob , that's what you do know ? Deleting my posts when im saying the truth ? Good job , you big fat thick fraud

Bob said...

I think you've had your say.

But if anyone wants more from our insightful friend here, you can go to his comments page on No censorship necessary - you can continue discussing the truth over there, that's fine by me.

james said...

oh dear, now you've pissed him off...

Toxx said...

This Haramein dude... I know something about physics and his 'physics' paper is a bunch of equations as simple as a child's argument for the moon to be up in the sky. Probably childish and false, with no true scientific base.

Plan said...

Love your willingness to teach and talk in lay terms to those of us who are smart but not scientifically trained. This is the school of the net at its best. I'm interested in science for the sheer beauty of it and don't like to see the colours muddied by dopey thinking. Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Hi guys, what is all this angre about?? why is it so important to you to discredit this guy? you wana be "right" is that all?? What i see here is simply someone who develop his own aproach of this all thing. Why is it that people with diploma think they are above everybody else? Dont forget that all you assume that you know is given to you. People have been manipulating others since all time.. Time to open your eyes, and double check by yourself what you think is true and valid.. There is something happening right now in human evolution, and its nothing to do with money. each of us ll have to face his self-destructive ego. Time to look for things that unify us all. Division, fear and chaos have no power anymore on those who become aware of something bigger than our daily little distractions. Things such as energy and allness are a fact. I send my compassion to the ones who dont speak the truth. Every body make his choices and assume the consequences. peace .Fabrice.

Bob said...

Hi Fabrice. There's no anger here, my friend - at least not from me. I'm simply putting out some information. What I've said has come from a great deal of thought and consideration.

If we're going to find the things that unify us all, this kind of fantasy pseudoscience really isn't the way to do it. The millions of people who understand true science who will never accept it, for one thing. You'd have to abolish education and replace it with Haramein dvds.

Haramein's ideas are popular but demonstrably false. When someone is making a name for himself by misleading people, I think it's good to shine a light on it. Some people will appreciate that perspective; these articles are for them.

GC said...

Bob, like everyone else here, I find your discussion and your opinion very interesting. You seem to definitely have a firm grip on the information and the theories. To add credibility to your points - which I'd say are definitely more sound and based in reason - I would like to know about your credentials. Just out of pure curiosity, what is your academic background?

GC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob said...

Thanks GC. I'm glad you appreciate it.

I've avoided the whole credentials thing, because I'd like what I've written to speak for itself. Also anyone can invent any credentials on a blog, especially if they're anonymous. And while some people love them, others hate them. So I don't really agree that it really adds to the credibility of what I've said... but I can't blame you for asking.

My credentials are pretty unexciting, but more than adequate. Sorry if that's a bit unsatisfactory, but I made a decision early on, and I want to stick with that.

A much better way to test what someone says, if you're not able to weigh up every point yourself, is to ask someone you trust what they make of the reasoning instead. If it's sound, it should be readily apparent to anyone who understands the issues.

If you've any questions about any of the points I've raised, do ask, or email.

Anonymous said...

One day, the language of science and the theories of reality will be so far from anything we can comprehend that we will look back to these arguments, tongue in cheek.

We can formulate language to argue for an against theories based on mathematical models and the like, and we can hold on tight to what we think we know and understand about nature and the universe, but we are simply arguing within limitted confines of a limitted understanding that our science offers us, of he universe.

This is not to downplay the value of the scientific method and the current understanding of physics which has allowed us to build many amazing things and to produce much incredible technology.

However, looking back to history, at the geniuses that pushed scientific knowledge to the edge; into the future; and this is not only apparent in science and physics, but in art and philosophy as well; the revolutionaries, the ones that could float outside of the theoretical box of what is accepted in scientific academia; the ones that were ridiculed non-stop... These are the geniuses written about in our text books.

You can scrutinize Nassim from the current dominant paradigm, and you can very easily tear him apart. However, there are many very intelligent and free thinking scientists and physicists out there, all over the world that are giving much credence to Nassim's ideas, this is a fact. Professors and researchers alike.

I think it is going a bit to far in calling him a pseudo scientist.

If there was nothing to his theories, and it was just nonsense, than I don't see why you would have put such energy into trying to debunk it? If it's nonsense, then it's nonsense. Why all the effort?

Bob said...

I agree with you that we have a limited understanding of the universe, and that we should never feel we have all the answers.

But there are some things that we do understand very well, and have understood for a long time. If you drop a heavy object from a 10th floor window, We have a law of gravity that tells us precisely how long it will take to hit the floor. Nobody is seriously going to argue with this.

Newton had a theory for that in 1687. Of course we have MUCH more sophisticated understanding of gravity now than Newton had (at least we think we do!). But whatever theory of gravity has developed since Newton, it ALWAYS has to agree with the results of Newton's theory when it comes to dropping heavy objects from 10th floor windows. Newton's theory still always gives the right answer to that.

If Einstein's General Relativity had conflicted with Newton's theory for the things that have been tested and found to work reliably under Newton's theory, then Einstein would have been wrong. Einstein knew that his theory had to respect absolutely everything that Newton's theory gets right.

If String Theory makes predictions that disagree with Einstein's theory for things that have been tested and found to work reliably under Einstein's theory, then String Theory will be wrong. String theory, if it is ever to become accepted, will have to respect absolutely everything that Einstein's theory gets right.

So yes, our understanding is limited, and there must always be room to discard our current concepts and our intuitions and our ways of thinking... but whatever we come up with in the future, surely we won't gain anything by simply discarding the things we have consistently observed to be true about nature over the years, and replacing powerful and precise theories with vague, glitzy ideas and bigging it up as the future of science.

Haramein does precisely this... he treats with disdain what centuries of science have uncovered, dismisses our most accurate and reliable theories of nature, and replaces them with something that he's made up, which is full of naive mistakes, and which conflicts with straightforward observations about nature.

He also makes claims that are way out of proportion to his understanding, and assumes the authority to criticise scientific ideas that he can't explain without spouting the most awful misunderstandings and schoolboy mistakes.

He misleads people and cultivates an image of himself as a scientist doing serious research and uncovering revolutionary theories about particle physics and cosmology, and he exploits that image to make money.

The internet is full of people who believe they have found the magic theory of the universe, and continue in this belief without ever checking with the rest of the world to see how much we've already observed of nature that might conflict with their belief.

Why bother risking having your theories overturned, when you can tap into people's prejudices against science by dismissing every other scientist in the world instead? The path of the pseudoscientist is a far easier one. And when you have no followers with any familiarity with what scientists actually do, which is the case for Haramein, nobody's going to be any the wiser.

In response to your final question, the reason is that Haramein appears to have attracted a large following. I do think his theories are nonsense, but I don't think the thousands of people who believe them to be true are idiots. I think many are capable of holding his ideas sufficiently lightly that they could subject them to some rational scrutiny.

Not all. But as I said a couple of comments back, this is written for those who are.

Anonymous said...

It looks to me like it's your research that's lacking and many of Harameins ideas have completely gone over your head. I've spent years researching physics, astronomy, history, spirituality, psychology, theology and on and on, it looks to me like Haramein has come up with some theories that fit almost everything far better than any current theories we have. If you want to convince me he's a quack you're going to have to dig far far far deeper into your own research than you apparently have.
Claiming that someones theories must be bunk because they have no apparent higher education is ludicrous, who was that other famous scientist that had little post secondary education and no phd's? ummm what is his name, oh yeah Nikola Tesla!!! Tesla attended university but quit after one term. Many of the greatest thinkers in history had little or no formal education so to say someone can't have great ideas without having higher education is total crap. Tesla and Einstein both claimed that most of their greatest ideas came as visions or dreams, as have many many other great minds throughout history.
You claim that science loves having theories overturned, what rock have you been hiding under? For hundreds of years every time a theory becomes the accepted norm the followers fight tooth and nail when it's threatened to be overturned. A good example is archaeology, there's a fair bit of information that's managed to leak out that shows that humans have been on this planet a lot longer than we all are taught in school. There's a mountain more evidence that hasn't been released to the public, why is this? to protect the current way of thinking.
I think the problem you're having is the same problem the majority of the worlds population're comfortable with the current paradigm, what is currently "known" and are afraid to consider new ideas.

Bob said...

Er... nope, somehow I don't think I want to try to convince you of anything. I'll pass on that.

rawuol said...

Dear Bob,
Taking the time to properly comprehend the information Nassim has researched would maybe(in retrospect)avoid future embarrassment in your endeavors to smear someones reputation.

It is understandable to question what may be different, but it seems like your credentials are lacking more then your claims on Nassim's. So why the need to claim him a fraud?

I believe that YOU probably misread the information stated about his paper and award. It states clearly how and why he earned it, not one bit embellishing.

Which also leads me to believe that maybe after your first misread, you may have felt like you were mislead with the rest of the information. Therefore feeling the need to write a blog to save everyone from the same torment you endured.

Truth is if you had any credability in the physics community, you would have put your credentials and math where your mouth is so to speak and invalidated his paper or even his entire research by doing your own, and having it recognized.

Instead you picked calling him out online, with nothing to back up your claims but your laptop and the little bit of dignity you can hold on to because know one knows who you really are.

Now to call your game for what it is. This blog was created by a person. Intended for the purpose of slander and character defromation.

Anyone can write a blog and post some words. Im doing it right now. This blog is an attack on Nassim's reputationand his research. Anyone willing to endulge bob in further talk is adding to such.

Bob said...

No Rawuol, none of that is true, oddly enough.

Oh, wait, I found something - you said "this blog was created by a person." Yes, it was.

olli said...

i searched "Nassim Haramein" on google and your article was on the first site.
thanks a lot for taking the time and debunking him in such a great way. i've read a lot of angry debunkings of peopkle, i never liked those. your debunking is absolutely perfect in content and tone.

Bob said...

My my, Anonymous of 5th September.

I'm completely in favour of dissenting voices, and I very rarely feel the need to remove any comments... but that isn't disagreement, it's just vile knuckleheaded prejudice. So it's going in the bin. If you have a point to make, please come back when you find a way to communicate it.

Anonymous said...

Dissenting voices? Knuckleheaded prejudice? Nothing in my commentary was either prejudice or dissenting. Nor did I even pick a topic with which to disagree. You really missed the mark on that one. I assumed that you'd remove it. Thanks for not disappointing. It was just sincere observation of this sad little spectacle you are creating here which is obviously based entirely on conjecture and opinion. It was quite egalitarian, sincere, and succinct. At the heart of the matter is the simple FACT that from a scientific standpoint of observing EVIDENCE or DATA, Mr. Haramein has gone above and beyond in addressing your petty and superficial criticisms. ALL PEOPLE OBSERVING THESE WORDS NEED TO MAKE SURE AND OBSERVE MR. HARAMEINS PERSONAL RESPONSE TO BOB'S CRITICISMS because that is all that matters here. It absolutely speaks for it self... LOUDLY, that is if it is science that you are interested in. At the end of the day bob, I am happy that you removed my prior comment because that action really just validates it's effectiveness, and at the heart... it was written to and for you. This whole dialogue can easily be sculpted by you so that it appears any way that you wish it to. How scientific is that? I am actually a bit astonished that you haven't removed the posting from The Resonance Project yet.

Bob said...

I didn't say you were dissenting or disagreeing. I thought that was clear. Never mind.

As you probably know, I've given my thoughts on Haramein's response here. I'm still waiting to see if anyone can give a single argument against any of the points I've made, rather than just having a tantrum about it all.

Anonymous said...

I think there kind of has to be a bottom line standard here. I only did an MSci in theoretical physics (which is way more than most of his followers, from what i've read) and I can see how his paper is essentially full of carp. For example:
"We note that this value is typically given as
the mass of matter in the universe. This may be an indication of an ultimate
entanglement of all protons."
Firstly, quoting a density and calling it a mass is enough to reject the paper and say 're-write it accurately'. Moving on he claims that this is an indication of entanglement of all protons. Firstly, entanglement is all about the level of correlation between specific types of observables in specific types of quantum systems. A particular clearly visible problem is that entanglement is in fact defined with respect to an un-entangled (pure) state. The fact that entangled and unentangled systems of protons can (and have) been independently studied, shows that not all protons are entangled. If you've been following you'll see that if it were true, then there would be no definition of entanglement in the first place.

It really takes someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, or who is trying to get treated like an idiot, to put the following tautology in their abstract
"and have a period of 10^-23s and a frequency of 10^22 Hz" The definition of one is the inverse of the other. A physicist only need state one or the other and the other is automatically implied. Furthermore, it's not just a tautology but he seems to be under the impression (by saying 'and') they they are in fact expressions of different information. Which is absolutely absurd.

I haven't looked at his stuff for long but it is far less enticing and demonstrates far less intelligence or understanding than any of the work produced by my peers back when I did my MSci (Royal Holloway, UoL if you must know).

Bob said...

Yes indeed. Absurd is the word. There's such a gaping chasm between his claims to be revolutionising science and the silliness, naivety and just plain blatant wrongness of his reasoning, it wouldn't be right not to say anything.

Regarding his 'entangled' protons, he doesn't know what entanglement is... in fact he regularly (and hilariously) denounces the whole of quantum mechanics, so it's nonsensical anyway.

His followers don't seem to notice anything except the emperor's truly marvellous new clothes, so he's unlikely to worry about it too much.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the thoughtful and useful critique. My gut was telling me something was up with this guy and I appreciate you confirming that he's as vapid and self-satisfying as he seems. People like him can be very dangerous. And we don't all have the backgrounds to truly scrutinize the claims. Thanks again for the hard work and clear explanation. Just saved me from what could have been a lot of grief and agony and misinformation.


Anonymous said...

Umm i don't know much about physics or what you people know about physics. but all i have to say is Galileo was put under house arrest for the last half of his life because he contradicted the catholic churches idea of the Earth being the center of the Universe. WRONG! Jupiter has moons that rotate around it and so do the other planets. just because someone comes up with a new idea about something doesn't make him the devil. We should take what we can from the teachings that are put before us and grow from it. Whether it is right or wrong i truly don't know but what i do know is the earth is round and waves are a circular oscillating form. not an up and down motion. Feel me?

Bob said...

Sure, there's nothing good in being afraid of new ideas. But I don't have anything to protect here... all I want to do is let people know that Haramein's new ideas fall completely apart if you look into them.

Physics doesn't need to defend itself against people like Haramein, because anyone who knows any physics can see straight away that his physics is bullshit. I agree with you – new ideas are great. What's not great is people who pretend to be physicists, who pretend their new ideas are revolutionary, and who use this pretence to gather paying followers.

I know that some people really want his ideas to be real science, but they're not, they're bullshit. That's the reason that everyone with any understanding of physics dismisses him – it's not because their minds are all poisoned by education, or whatever it is Haramein wants you to believe. It's because he's full of crap.

I've tried my best to explain what is wrong about his ideas here. You could try this page if you want something a bit less technical.

If what you want is pretty stories, then sure, he's great. But he's playing people for fools when he claims to be a physicist, and I think that's worth speaking out about. It's manipulative, misleading and wrong.

Happy to talk about waves some more if you like... some are circular, some are up and down, and some are different again. No physicist thinks they're all up and down. Who told you that? I can guess... :-)

Anonymous said...

I'm with JT all the way... This whole "debunking" has been a waste of my time and sadly may deter others from realizing the false assumptions and bogus teachings that are present-day science... Let's have REAL and HONEST scientific methods, people!

Bob, you suck! But I love you anyway. Nassin is a genius. I just hope you wake up. We need critical minds like you to continue to expand on the great work Nassim is doing. Be brave, Bob!

Bob said...

JT made all his comments before I'd provided a substantial scientific argument against Haramein's paper, and I responded by providing one. It's all perfectly honest and perfectly real... two words that can hardly be associated with this guy.

I wonder what 'honest' and 'real' understanding of science you have that leads you to write it off as false and bogus and cling to the clueless smiley dude with pretty stories instead? Do share them with us. We love you too, fairycakes.

Alex (from Barcelona) said...

Hi Bob,

I just wanted to thank you for the time you have invested in such a clear and concise debunking of this fraud. Your analysis of the Schwarzschild paper is brilliant and crystal-clear and your research into his "award" is also a very much-needed piece of information. Hopefully your blog will contribute in avoiding people falling for this scam.
I also wanted to add to this debate an additional point of view which might interest you. I am into the study of destructive cults and after reading your blog I started looking into the this Resonance Project and the courses he teaches and so on and I have reached the conclusion that there is very little doubt in my mind that this is a destructive cult. People who come into contact with this guru and his group are then encouraged to enrol in courses that lead eventually to becoming an "Emissary" of Nassim's "teachings". Very worrying indeed. So apart from debunking his phony science, we should also warn people of the dangers of attending his 8-hour long "conferences" and weekend "seminars".

Bob said...

Indeed. I'd encourage you and anyone else to give your thoughts on the facebook sites that still allow free comment, such as this one (which banned me long ago... so I guess it's not that free), or his videos on YouTube and elsewhere, which is often where people first encounter him.

Unfortunately most sites showcasing his stuff (including his own site) either have no forum for comment or are heavily moderated to exclude criticism.

I think a meaningful comment here and there can have some effect on people who are encountering this stuff for the first time, perhaps encouraging them to think a little more before being taken in by it.

Anonymous said...



Bob said...


Of what are you suspicious, o anonymous alarm-bell-type individual?

(Why do I have a feeling that I'll regret asking that question)

Anonymous said...

One thing ive noticed debunkers like this sad site do is name call (same tactic when one has no real credibility) just an antiquated "belief system". Scam, phoney science, fraud are just a few stones thrown here but NOTHING credible such as FACTS! Shame on you.

Bob said...

That's the strangest comment I've had so far.

I've presented fact after fact, especially here and here.

And there isn't a single example of me name-calling anywhere on this site. Calling Haramein's money-spinning activities a scam for no reason with no explanation would be name-calling. But given that I've provided page after page of evidence and examples of misleading and disreputable behaviour and mis-selling, it's just calling a spade a spade.

I've never been accused of having an antiquated belief system before, that's fabulous. Tell me more :-)

Nassim Haramein said...

the comments are really going very "wild ", and i dont know why .....Nassim Haramein is a great Phycist , there is no place for other bad things thar rumours says or media

Bob said...

Hello Nassim Haramein.

What makes him a great physicist, in your view?

Do you think it's out of order of me to explore whether or not his ideas make any sense as descriptions of nature?

If it's found to be fatally flawed in many many ways (which it has), and if there are no examples of him anywhere doing any science that makes any logical sense (which there aren't), then is it right for him to continue to make a living by pretending that it's real physics, just because some people like him?

Is it right for you to believe what he says just because you're impressed by his presentations?

There are no rumours here. So will you tell me why you think he's a great physicist, or do we just have to take it on faith without understanding because you take it on faith without understanding and you say so?

Benjamin said...

Hey Bob, I can't help but admire your shear determination and patience to answer all these questions. Respect, really!

P.S. I live in Belgium, not far from Liège, or "Luik" as it's called in Flemish.
After reading through all of this I get the strange urge to go over there and find out how this Nassim succeeded in getting an award for his "scientific?" paper.
I mean, yes, we Belgians know that the university of Liège isn't one of the best or most prestigious in the country, (like Gent or Leuven) but this much of a mistake? My best bet is laziness, they probably didn't even read it.
(And that's a lesson to all of his supporters and "truth seekers", you're not sheep, don't be lazy, think for yourself!)

What do you think, should I dig up my best French and go ask them what actually happened?
This should be funny :)

Keep up the good work Bob, it's a noble thing you're doing here!

Bob said...

Yes, that could be interesting, Benjamin.

Though the award wasn't actually awarded by the University; just by the participants of a conference that made use of a University building. There's no mention of the University on the certificate, and it's not signed by University officials. So I don't think there's much of a mystery.

Haramein's website claims he "received an award at the University of Liege." The word "at" is true in the sense that the conference just happened to be located there. It's very misleading, especially as it's accompanied by a link to the university's website.

It's difficult to see that as not being deliberately deceptive. It's certainly very pretentious.

I figured it was pretty clear what's happened, but I'm open to anyone doing research and shedding some more light on it :-)

Anonymous said...

what is more interesting is to what lengths people are going to disprove/debunk this person...why are the science community so afraid of new ideas, new thoughts, perhaps they are afraid they might loose too much if something else threatens there way of thinking...

Bob said...

Hello anonymous.

Where have you seen the science community going to any lengths at all? I'm not the science community. The science community has done nothing but dismiss this guy as a joke and an utter waste of their time.

I put this here for those who are interested, to encourage thought. I hope they find it helpful.

Two questions for you:

1. If I were afraid of new ideas and new thoughts, would I explore them in great detail, very openly, and invite comment and debate about them?

2. If someone sees a guy making a living by misleading thousands of people, can you see why they might want to speak out?

If you have any ideas or thoughts, I'd love to hear them. If ANYONE has ANY ideas or thoughts that support Haramein's ideas, I'd love to hear what they are. It'd make a change to childish accusations.

Anonymous said...

Pow! fuck, what a read. i started watching the video then googled his name and found this.

Bob, what can i say. your a very cool calm and collected cat and by the sounds of things know your science. although i wouldn't have a clue as i dont know mine. either way you present all of this very nicely. and it is very useful for people like me to have someone say " well actually your syaing that adds up... and it doesnt"

as i said i no nothing of science n less of maths. which leaves me.. in the category of people that love this stuff but probably have an IQ the wouldnt make a good golf score :P i like that comment. and i appreciate that we could be a very dangerous bunch and easily mislead.

i havnt really got a point.. Conspircies, alternative history, mind bending drugs, and aliens i love it all but its good to keep an eye and an ear on more mainstream thinkers telling you its BS, cause it very well may be! youve done it in a lovely way.

i just watched which some may enjoy. really interesting. i will now go off to see if hes been debunked in anyway 1+1=3 sorta thing.

do what you do people, but dont get into cults


thanks said...

Thanks for writing this up! Saved me time I might have wasted watching a video with him. I do have an open mind, but those massive protons...

Loek said...

Well Bob,

It was quite a challenge to think about any idea that can support the theory of Nassim Haramein, but I might have found one: dark matter. Could dark matter be a reasonable explanation of the difference in measurement between the actual mass of a proton and the required mass of a proton in the Schwarzschild condition? After all, dark matter is something like 40% of the mass of the universe and its properties are not well known. Does the number of protons in the universe multiplied by the difference of their actual and estimated mass has any resemblance with the mass of dark matter?
Otherwise I run out of suggestions.

I think you do it great answering all these questions so politely. I am impressed.

With kind regards,


Bob said...

Worth a try, Loek!

The concept of dark matter is a very powerful and reliable addition to our theories of galaxy dynamics and cosmic evolution. In the case of galaxies, without dark matter, the theory predicts a small mass; but when we look at how it moves we measure a large mass (in most cases it's something like five to ten times bigger, depending on the galaxy). If we add dark matter in the theory, it all falls into place and we see perfect agreement.

Haramein's theory predicts a stupidly big mass for the proton, and therefore for everything made out of atoms. Not just five or ten times too big, but five hundred million million million million million million times too big.

If we add dark matter into the theory... well, it would get even bigger!

So I think that's a pretty definite no :-)

Lucy said...

Dear Bob
I haven't had the patience to read through the entire blog but I am glad to have found it. For a while I was very excited about NH. I am not a scientist, more of an historian [I have published a book earlier this year which looks at both ancient history and quantum physics 'Approaching Chaos - could an ancient archetype save C21st civilisation?']. What got me excited about NH was the importance that he attaches to the Golden section which intuitively I feel is so important [why is it missing from Euler's formula?]. I thought, at last... But then I felt queasy about looking at his foundation. I couldn't see any proper accreditation for the female scientist he claims as one of his directors. And worse, what he says about history is very dubious. My suspicions are always aroused when people request money. If he were that good and that correct he wouldn't need funding from ordinary people.
It is a pity because there is some serious work to be done. Physicists could unlock the secrets of the ancients. Fritjof Capra was going along the right lines. And Rupert sheldrake is another one. It is a complete waste of time wondering about Big Bang. Far more useful is to work out how they moved those big stones. They knew how to interfere with gravity. If we could rediscover this ancient knowledge we wouldn't need all this petroleum based pollution and we could enjoy our planet instead of watching it die in our selfish way.

Bob said...

The ancients knew how to interfere with gravity? Don't be silly.

We do need to learn to look after our planet, though. We need to learn to communicate the reality of what we already know is going on, to learn to set in motion real changes in accordance with it, and to learn to collectively understand our place in the world, and live with it in our hearts.

If we start turning away from those who are doing the honest job of finding things out and of testing our best ideas as to what's going on, then we're in trouble. That's the last thing we need.

I hope you learned what quantum physics actually is before writing about it, rather than just taking some ideas you liked from people like Capra, as so many do. Apologies if I'm getting you wrong, but I've seen loads of books recently in which the authors lift whatever cherry-picked interpretations of quantum physics they think will fit their ideas, disregard the complexity (not to mention the fact that millions of people actually have bothered to learn it), and misuse it in support of their ideas. I'm really not a fan of that kind of thing. It just seems such a shame.

Tell me I've got you wrong, Lucy, and I'll gladly take it all back (well, apart from the bit about gravity, because that's silly)

Lucy said...

Hi Bob
I too hope I learned enough about quantum physics to make some sense when writing about it. (I did look at more than Fritjof Capra...) I think it is part of our arrogance that we assume that we are so advanced. This may sound strange but I am sure that if you looked at it closely you would perhaps see that there is more in common between certain aspects of modern science with ancient magia which predates Greeks and Romans.If I had the space I would explain [alternatively you can always read the chapter in my book - it's a very good read! Goes back to the end of the Ice Age and looks at how civilisation really came about...I would be happy to send you a copy.]

On that basis it is not silly to suggest that interference with gravity is a serious proposition - how open-minded are you?!?. What is silly is to suggest that thousands of slaves were capable of pulling stones weighing 50 ton or more, hundreds of miles using only hemp rope. Any engineer will tell you that such stresses are only as strong as their weakest link; it makes no difference how many people pull on that.

We should regard our ancient past with more respect and not dismiss them as ignorant and primitive. We should try to rediscover their secrets. The physical evidence is staring us in the face of what they were able to achieve - huge tonnage, massive distances, over ravines. These were incredible feats that known slave societies like Greece and Rome were unable to replicate.

As well as using our clever scientific minds to unlock those secrets, we should also be using our scientific skills to unchain all our clever chemistry so that it doesn't leave toxic impact. Why shouldn't we be able to drink from streams without fear?

If we were really clever we would be able to live in harmony with nature and in urban comfort as the ancient Egyptians were able to.

Bob said...

No, it's silly. The facts are that there are things that the ancient Egyptians did that we don't fully understand. To jump from that to altering the laws of physics to fit your story is very silly.

Their life expectancy was early thirties, and less than half made it to adulthood. If our society were the ancient Egyptian utopia you're proposing, we'd most likely also be dead.

I can see the draw to romanticising them, though, and pretending they were magic. They are fascinating.

Lucy said...

there is nothing silly, romantic or magical about a very large block of stone. It either is or it isn't a large block of stone. Personally, I prefer to consider 'facts' and evidence, rather than romantic nonsense or foolish attempts to alter the laws of physics. I am also interested in solutions rather than problems per se.
I completely agree with you about the danger of misguided people hijacking physics and misleading gullible people along the lines of NH et al.Having said that, what I cannot understand is why so much time, energy and resources is devoted to ultimately pointless enquiries in modern physics? As far as I can tell the only benefits of Cerne have been by-products such as www. and MRI scanners. Clever people spend so much time working out arcane stuff to do with black holes, the mass of protons etc and we are still reliant on highly polluting energy sources.What NH says is no more useful than anyone else.
I don't think Egypt was a utopia. I think it really happened. I think the 50 ton granite was moved 500 miles from the quarry in Aswan to the Giza plateau. And I think the same things happened in central and Southern America. And I don't think it was magic [big difference between magic and magia]. I think that there are laws of physics which can explain what happened and if we were really clever we would be able to access them.
It is a pity to dismiss such physical evidence of something we don't understand because of an assumption about life expectancy being an indicator of social advancement. Rameses II lived into his 80s. Dr Joyce Tyldesley's work on the pyramid builders shows that they were not poor malnourished slaves but received successful medical treatment long before they died. In anycase, in what sense are our homes full of incontinent dribbling vegetables suffering alzheimers an advertisement for the advantages of a long life? I know several examples of the counterproductive effects of relying on modern medication like steroids which eventually resulted in unpleasant and painful death for the individuals - an undoubted mixed blessing.
If we knew what they [Egyptians, Phoenicians, Minoans, Mayans etc] knew, we wouldn't have had the problems associated with Gulf Oil spills, with the Danube threatened with red toxic mud, Chernobyl, Bhopal,etc etc. It's not just our life expectancy that is threatened by our inability to understand the laws of physics (and chemistry), it is the life expectancy of our planet.
Serious people should seriously try and understand the ancient past. It isn't a waste of time because we can see with our own eyes that they were able to achieve stuff. In fact, it would be a positive advantage if someone like you were to investigate the past because it would give less chance for misguided cultists to mislead their followers.

Bob said...

I didn't dismiss evidence of something we don't understand - I did exactly the opposite. What I dismissed is the use of something we don't understand as a means of asserting something extraordinary. That's always going to raise eyebrows.

The internet is teeming with self-styled theorists who have decided that they know a hell of a lot of historical and scientific things that the world's professional historians and scientists have never thought of.

Occasionally, maybe one of them has a point... but how is anyone to know? In my experience, the (understandable) mistake they almost all make is to keep on searching for evidence to reinforce their own ideas and building up their story, and thereby disappear up their own backsides. Their story then takes on a life of its own, quite independently of reality, and it can even start defending itself of its own accord (you know, people start to believe that everyone in the entire field is too closed-minded to understand it... that kind of thing).

Unless you can demonstrate that you've taken the trouble to dig around for counter-evidence to all your theories, your ideas will be indistinguishable from all the other fluffy assertions out there. The willingness to seek out opposing arguments - to take them very seriously and find out exactly what is behind other people being so sure of their position - is an essential aspect of the quest for truth.

Without that willingness, it's merely a quest to develop and protect a story that appears to you to be true, like so, so many others.

If someone hasn't developed that kind of rigorous, self-questioning mentality, it's apparent as soon as they start presenting their ideas. I don't know much history at all, but I have enough experience of physics to see that you're employing it without understanding what you're doing. It's far easier for someone who doesn't know what they're talking about to say things like "they interfere with gravity" than it is for someone who does.

If you don't understand it, it's a convenient notion. If you do, then you'll be aware of the kinds of questions that such a notion raises, and very soon it won't seem so convenient any more.

Anyway, I wish you the best with your investigations. I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong about anything (after all, who knows?), just that I don't see any reason to believe that you know what you're talking about... and that others might not either. And to give you my feeling of why that might be, just in case you're open to that.

If not, that's ok.

Lucy said...

Dear Bob
thank you for your patience in replying to me. I quite take your point about rigour: I grew up in the university town of Cambridge (one of my ancestors held the same Lucasian chair as Newton and S Hawkins); I spent 5 years at university myself. I understand about the need for rigour. One of the compliments I have had about my book is that it is well-researched (it took me 10 years to write). My assertions are evidence-based. It isn't my evidence that is in question: it is my interpretation that is controversial.

It is a pity you seem more concerned to question my credibility and my methodology than to address the fundamental issue which is:- in legitimately de-bunking NH, are you in danger of disregarding other challenges to conventional views, esp if they come from non-physicists? And what is so wrong with using something we don't understand to assert something extraordinary [is there a tautology in there??]?

My point to you is that this extraordinary and not much understood phenomenon is worthy of serious investigation. I accept that a physicist wouldn't write something like "interfere with gravity" - I am not pretending to be a physicist. I am merely suggesting that the ancients had a technique which rendered gravitational forces negligible - and that it was this rather than some equal mass theory (the thousands of slaves...) which moved the giant stones. A levitational technique like maglev.

I am surprised you don't find that interesting or at least worthy of comment. But thank you for your good wishes [read my book and then tell me if I do or don't know what I am talking about!!] and thank you also taking the time to do your de-bunking. The world of ideas needs clarity and integrity - and it also needs challenging!

Bob said...

Ok, then we disagree. For me, the only honest response to the presence of something that appears remarkable and is not understood is to say that it is remarkable and is not understood.

I don't doubt that you have evidence of some remarkable and fascinating observations – but why say things like "the ancients had a technique which rendered gravitational forces negligible"?

It's a utterly absurd logical jump, no matter how well researched your historical facts are.

In order to explain some historical anomalies, what you're doing is invoking a massive revolution in a discipline you have no understanding of, just because it seems a convenient.

Let me give you an example the other way around.

Imagine if a physicist finds some unusual results in some carbon dating in Egypt that he can't explain. He decides that the best conclusion he could come to is to assert that the entire country has actually not been populated by humans until the 17th Century AD.

This might seem to solve the mystery for him, and it might seem perfectly reasonable - but only if he had no real understanding of history, and had just assumed that historians don't really know anything anyway, and that it's not worth checking his idea with them because they're all too closed-minded to understand his revolutionary historical discovery.

That would be very naive. He really should have run it by some historians before he made the assertion in public. Hopefully someone would point out that, actually, historians have been studying Egypt for centuries, and there are an overwhelming number of extremely sound reasons why his suggestion is just silly. He ought to go off and either find some more evidence and figure out a more sensible conclusion, or just admit that he doesn't know.

It's easier to point out historical facts than to explain what physicists have been doing for the last few hundred years, so I'm aware that I haven't actually given you any convincing scientific reason as to why your suggestion is silly. I don't know what to suggest other than to study some physics, or run your idea by some physicists and see what they think.

I don't expect that you feel that you're dismissing an entire branch of human endeavour in order to imagine a solution to your unexplainable thing. You clearly don't think it's silly. So perhaps you don't see why I'm saying this, and it probably seems a little unfair. And you seem nice, so I don't want to just keep trying to say what's wrong with what you're doing. I'm sure you've done some good work too.

You asked "what is so wrong with using something we don't understand to assert something extraordinary [is there a tautology in there??]?" Surely it's the complete opposite of a tautology - an oxymoron? I just don't see the sense in basing an argument on not actually knowing what's going on.

It's a very human thing to want to do, though. This guy can explain it much better than me.

The main point is that it's ok to be comfortable with the unknown. It's underrated, I think. And far more honest.

In answer to your other question, I don't think I'm disregarding other challenges to conventional views - at least not without having a very good reason. And if I have a good reason, I'll usually try to explain it if anyone seems interested. But we have to disregard some things.

There's so much amazing stuff out there - it seems a shame to spend our time trying to wrap our heads around a theory that some bloke just made up and is trying to pass off as fact. And there are a lot of them out there... way, way too many... and I've already spent way too much time thinking about them. I'm supposed to be trying to get my head around the theories sitting on my desk instead of doing this! But hey, none of us are rational beings in the end. :-)

Metroplex said... ive been fascinated by all of this..and to think that i was watching Ancient Aliens on the History channel while i was simply skimming through the first portion of the page..but when i hit the all became veeery interesting and blocked out the TV. All i can say is .." I Love it!"...This is the kinda discussions that i love to engage in.

I can honestly say that i saw NH's videos on youtube and i was pretty captivated ( that was last year )..course now i should have been studying for my anatomy test today but it was a series of events that lead me here..and im glad i did.

Im not one of those that simply "believes" what certain people say much less how some history is told ( by the church, as i was brought up baptist ). I was fairly curious at a young age when i posed the question to the church leader about creation and its complexities. I was smiling as i received no Accurate response, i knew something felt fishy and you could Definitely Tell something was missing from the bible.

But not to deviate from the topic at hand. I must say that Bob you have done some work..even tho i may also have feel skeptical even of your approach but non the less it caused just enough stir in my mind to support the gut feeling i trust in about such things. And i must also say that NH does have a way with words and his acquired "data" does seem very enticing but for those with a far more curious and skeptical attraction to tasty must be very careful what one takes in cause you never know what may poison you..or your mind.

I would say that i have a very opened im not picking a side just yet about all this, and when i mean all of this i mean all that which is far beyond out understanding because from what i understand, we humans still dont know a fraction of what is Truly to be Known. I think i'll keep an eye on this particular page because as of yet..this is by far the most intellectually, funny and fantastically constructive collection of conversations between those Known and unknown people to chime in a such topic. Well done everyone Keep it up. Now..back to the world of the Human body..hehe

Matt said...

Alright Bob,you sound like your a very intelligent and rational bloke.You like to work of facts and evidence.Which is very inmortant.But I can see some problems in the way you think too.

You need to take a different approach in getting to the truth.Thats what I thought science is.The search for truth.

Just like you havent watched all of Nassims lectures, you also dont like to look at the facts that contradict your understanding of the world.

One problem with western science,is that they ASSUME everything returns enitial conditions.To them it doesnt matter if they do an experimenton a Monday morning,or a Sunday afternoon.It is all time inderpendent,which isnt a very accurate assumption.Cause things do change and dont returnto enitial conditions.Can you go back to being a baby?
Can you go back to the man you were,after a women broke your heart?
Its not just in biological cellular systems,you can also see this in a planetary system.We know the Earth is spinning on its axis.Also the axis as a wobble.We also we know that the Earth is orbiting the Sun,but the Sun is moving too.The Sun as never been in the same place twice,meaning we havent either.

So if nothing returnsto enitial conditions,that is a big problem in current science.In science,when theres a problem like this,what do they do? They dont like to talk about it,which isnt right.

You make a good example about carbon dating in Egypt.You are right you shoudnt just assume things and make a irrational assumption.But thats what science,archaeology and egyptology have been doing.In archaeology when excuvating a site,and the find remains of a fire.They will carbon date the fire,to give them a date.So they are assuming that the fire was the during the time the ancient site was beening built.Thats wrong to assume that.

Whilst we are on the subject of Egypt.There is evidence of water erosionon the Sphinx.This is a massive discovery,with physical evidence we all can see.But mainstream and so called Egyptology doesnt like to talk about it.With this evidence the Sphinx is at least 10,000 years old.

So even when there is substantial evidence that the Sphinx is older than what is thought by the establishment but because it contradictsthe current mainstream view,it is thrown out as rubbish.This isnt right.There are so many things like this all around the world.

The correlation between the 3 pyramids at Giza and Orions belt and this also correlates to ancients site in England.The stunning Thornbourgh Henge.

Gobekli Tepe in Turkey which is 11,500 years old,all this contradicts the mainstream views on the 'Orgin Of Man'

Bob I will appreciate any comments to what you think.

Bob said...

Thanks Metroplex!

Glad you're enjoying it. I have to say, I'm starting to feel I've taken on a little too much by trying to respond to every comment... I wasn't expecting so much! I'm not sure how much longer I can keep it up. :-)

I was wondering what you mean by "all that which is far beyond our understanding"

For anything that is beyond our understanding, the only honest response has to be to admit that we don't know. So if you ever see people debating 'scientifically' about something that is far beyond their understanding, then they probably need cold water throwing over them.

Haramein regularly pontificates greatly on things that he doesn't understand... but I've been trying very hard not to do that.

Still, perhaps there are things that I think I understand but don't... or perhaps I've said things where I've said something that sounds more concrete than I meant it to. Let me know if you think I'm overstepping my understanding anywhere, won't you.

Bob said...

Hi Matt,

No, I haven't assumed any initial conditions, or anything returning to anything. I'm not really sure what you mean.

Scientists look for patterns, they look for things that are reliable, time after time, because that's the best way we have of learning about the world.

Assumptions in science are made extremely carefully... and if an assumption is made, the scientist should make it very clear and also investigate what the implications would be if the assumption is not true.

I think you're massively underestimating the sophistication of the reasoning that scientists employ when they're trying to get to the bottom of stuff. They're really not as dumb as you seem to think they are.

I'm not an archaeologist. I don't know anything about the Sphinx. But I think it's safe to say that there are always scientists working on it who are looking for radical new interpretations of what they find.

Some people use the term 'mainstream' as if it's some kind of conspiracy or dogma, representing an inability to see anything different. It really isn't.

In any science there are thousands of people who would dearly love to make their name by overturning the majority understanding. They're human beings - this is what most scientists love. To investigate, and find that things aren't what we thought. That is how science grows, and how we learn.

So what is the 'mainstream'? It's usually just a set of ideas that have stood the test of time. It's our current best ways of seeing of how things are, and despite enormous amounts of effort from scientists all over the world to overturn or contradict them, nobody has found conclusive evidence against them. If the evidence was there, and if it was substantial, then our best pictures would change.

They always do, eventually. But substantial new evidence is very rare. There are far more false alarms and mysterious finds that - if we're honest - don't tell us anything new other than 'here's something else we don't really understand, let's add it to the pile.'

Will there be 'evidence' against mainstream ideas all over the internet? Absolutely! The internet isn't only populated by scientists, it's also populated by attention seekers and delusional nutters, self-promoting dvd and book-sellers, and everything else.

Do scientists fear this 'evidence'? No, of course they don't. If there's anything in it, there'll always be scientists who'll pick it up and try to make something substantial of it. And if it stands up to scrutiny, it will be accepted. Yes, people oppose ideas and get attached to the old ways of thinking, and yes, it can take years for something radical to be accepted, and yes none of them are perfect and some of them will make dicks out of themselves, but there are also always many scientists looking for and willing to adopt new ideas.

So in summary, scientists really aren't as dumb as some people seem to love to believe. And I don't buy the idea that there's all this convincing evidence out there that scientists just ignore. It's just not the way they work.

I'm not sure if that answers what you're saying, but I wanted to say it anyway. :)

AP said...

@Lucy, Matt, Metroplex

Lets make sure that we understand: 1) Bob needing to take a new approach, or 2) "legitimately de-bunking NH", or 3) deciding which side to take(Metroplex, cool name btw :-)........ or 4)Determining where "mainstream science" is wrong (Matt)

None of those are the issues. I mean, of course one is free to believe whatever they wish, but it troubles me when some of you present these ideas as though they are what needs to be researched and 'taken care of'-so to speak.

Bob has already de-buncked Haramein Lucy, its been finished and as he stated there is no reason to waste more time on him. I sent his work to a former astrophysics professor of mine and he sent it back saying "This is word soup, nothing more" And he had no reason to support of not support NH.

So the de-bunking I feel has been long since finished for most of the vital areas of concern.

Secondly, what I see happening way to often (and this is how NH got popular)especially within my field of public policy,emergency management/homeland security, and political sciences(since it is easier then physics for laymen and non-academics to discuss)is that folks just brush over large amounts of information, and then state their interpretation of the small amount of information they HAVE fact! As a fiat rule!

With Haramein, it is clear to see this is what has happened. Often times the word "mainstream" is negatively associated with terms, like 'mainstream media'(which does mess up A LOT) or if your a far left-wing conspiracy nut then its "the mainstream public isn't aware of the secret massive conspiracy the Government has" Those are people like Steven Greer and his organization "Disclosure Project"

All of it assumes so much, and doesn't follow what the specialist and the experts from the given subject matter are talking about. There is only ONE WAY to follow physics, or understand physics if you are not producing physics research yourself(and even then those guys follow the other areas of physics and science in general this same way) which is...

Learning from the specialist, the academics, reading and trying to understand what they are telling you, or (as I have tried to do recently with Bob's help) trying to learn some of the Mathematics behind the abstract conceptualizations.

It is always best to read physics journals, articles, science news, and then make your statements. And I am not saying none of you have done that, but what I am saying is that charlatans like NH and his followers don't seem to be able to see all the already existing exotic concepts in physics, or one scientist trying to disprove another by legitimate academic means, and all of the open-minded attitude present in real theoretical physics.

Instead they want to just put a 5 hour presentation up, which is claiming to replace over 200+ years of work which has led to fields like QFT, QCD general relativity etc!

AP said...

More often then not for folks like Bob, scientist, physicist, academics of from all categories have to worry more about how to effectively curb or reduce pseudo science, without offending the person they are "de-bunking"

All the while, the person they are "de-bunking" is CONSTANTLY insulting and offending the mainstream scientist by calling them names and what not.

Those of the scientist who actually care enough to waste their time doing what's right(and I say waste cause it is unfortunetly a big WASTE) have to get called names on top of it!

AP said...


Lucy, as far the specific topics you raised regarding certain archeological and historical facts about antiquity, there is a lot to say on this topic and it can't be summed up in just a few statements like you had made.

I work in the public safety field (more in the past, less today), and deal with large scale responses to crisis situations. You brought up the Gulf BP oil leak and the subsequent turmoil that followed because of the poor preparedness efforts and scale of the disaster itself.

I will tell you that I would be the first person to say that many of the pieces regarding the full picture of Egypt in antiquity are missing, and this is known.

However, you are making it sound like there are specific pieces of "knowledge" which somehow relates to the technology we have today, and if we "listened" to that knowledge better, then we would not have natural and man-made disasters. That is absolutly not true at all.

It is exciting to see the ancients posses more technologically then we thought they did. However, getting carried away with that is a different story, people get excited and make statements to me all the time which go like "hey did you ancient Egypt had everything we have now and much more way back then for their technology"??

That is a joke, not worth even addressing. I have studied and read everything from the material Nassim talks about, what they point out on Ancient Aliens (history channel specials) and Christopher Dunn's "Giza Power Plant" book and his engineering work, which I must say is quite remarkable, so please keep that in mind, because when I come out speaking against some of the pseudo science, people get all angry and jump the gun saying " oh you just don't know about all this research maaan" Well....I do!

And trust doesn't amount to jack squat when comapred to the legitimate science out there which disproves most of it. Though I will again say, there are certain aspects of the Pyramids at Giza, the sights at Puma Punkain Tianachwa produced more questions then answers, and I would say the story is long from being written or finished....

Lucy, your going on and on about Egypt, and Utopias, and drinking from streams, and while I might be all about those things, some of the other comments you are making carry very little weight. I am sorry, but I could say the same thing about researching or rewriting our past!.... You tell me, why should out physicist waste their time "accsess the laws of physics" which tell us what cool things might or might not have happened 4,000 years ago??

Then your next statements, really doesn't make much sense You said:

"As far as I can tell the only benefits of Cerne have been by-products such as www. and MRI scanners. Clever people spend so much time working out arcane stuff to do with black holes, the mass of protons etc and we are still reliant on highly polluting energy sources.What NH says is no more useful than anyone else."

First, you mean CERN, not Cerne.

Secondly, your assertions about particle physics research at CERN, and nothing having come of the science which studies black holes and proton masses, is preposterous to say the least! In fact you just named two MAJOR benefits, and your referring to them as "only benefits I can see" ....what?...As though those are some little insignificant practical advances? Are you kidding me, practically EVERYTHING Medicine and doctors have been able to do for your friends, family members, and the entire world is because of those achievements. MRI, Lasers, advances in microscopy,software engineering, silicon chips, "www's" etc....All of this is what our entire society rests on for its' foundation and your claiming or implying those are a waste of time?


AP said...

Lucy- Your statement simply isn't true. "As far as I can tell the only benefits of Cerne have been by-products such as www. and MRI scanners. Clever people spend so much time working out arcane stuff to do with black holes, the mass of protons etc and we are still reliant on highly polluting energy sources.What NH says is no more useful than anyone else"

CERN (not Cerne)

Represents (in context of our discussion here) the end result of what many years of research have brought us too. The practicality? Well, all I can say is that if your implying we have scientist work on discovering what secret powers the ancients have, instead of what scientist are currently working on, then I could just as well state the same thing to you:

"I can't see why so much time and energy is wasted by lying pseudo science supporters and scam artist in trying to create some type of technology out of thin air, without putting any of the hard work and time that goes into those sorts of endeavors into it.

Whats worse, I am shocked that you aren't able to see how everything you have today is a result of these "physicist" which you would rather see uncovering secrets in ancient Egypt so that they can do....what exactly?

I am the first person to admit that there is a lot of wonderful information missing about our cultures in antiquity, but complaining that modern science is focusing on the right things isn't reasonable.

When you made your statements, I get the feeling you are somehow trying to imply that those two advances are insignificant? The physics which made MRI's and lasers possible is responsible for all of the medical advancements of the past 100 years or so Lucy. This is NOT insignificant, it is why we have the ability to save your life, your families life, your friends life and my life. It is the reason medical break-through are possible...and medicine is another science which can't afford to have people like Nassim Haramein having ANYTHING to do with it!!!

Everything from your GPS unit, to your vehicle, your CPU, TV, internet, bank account transactions, advances which allow doctors to diagnose and save your life are all attributed to the physics of the past 200 years.

Also, you keep referring to "magia" and unlocking some secret energy, and you feel that would be a better way to spend scientist's time??? Why....looking for sustainable long term energy so that society doesn't have to die cultivating it's last drop of oil, which will run out soon....that isn't important enough for you?

The research into Nuclear Fusion is, which by the way is what will determine whether you children generation starves to death because of no replacement for OIL (which runs every mechanical piece of equipment with more then two moving parts, and supplies you with the commodities you need to survive) or there is a massive war and geopolitical realignment where man kind has to downsize it's population or we will all starve to death while trying to fight off each other for resources.....and yes this is my professional opinion on what will happen ...BUT

If the hard working Nuclear physicist of today, who are trying 4 or 5 different approaches at achieving sustainable Nuclear Fusion which can be then exported to the current power grid infrastructure, then we will be saved. And THATS what you physicist are doing....they are busy saving your life and my life!

Anonymous said...

wow blown away by Nassim then i found this site...bummers dude :-(

I dunno bro....peoples got2be recognizing that Haramein is 1 of a kind! I have nevr seen such amazing work, he has done it...proven that regular scientist dunno jack & found the cure to black holes and embedded singularity structures.

my brother and i had a theory, i see some on here that seem 2 be wise and maybe u can help our theory get picked up

we theorized then proved that the universe is in fact made up of millions of singularities embedded within eachhoder. and i think we hav to unlock the secrets of Egypt like haramein said if we want to find out how to make this amazing device which the ancients had!

AP said...

Lucy- On Egypt I will say the following:

The only credible work I have seen done which conflicts which a lot of the existing theories on how the structures were built and what they were used for is Christopher Dunn's Giza Power Plant theory and other work he has done using his skills as a mason, engineer and chemical expert. And he even states that this is just his theory and very open to be proven wrong, which guys like Haramein never do.

The Giza PP theory holds some weight as a possible solution to a lot of the questions which have been raised over time. Some of the new theories range from ridiculous and outrageous, to more plausible.

However, there is way to little evidence for the scientific community to make a deceleration on anything.

The problem with Egypt as I understand it is exactly opposite to what you had stated earlier about evidence being all over the place and hard to ignore. That isn't true at all, the evidence is scare and very hidden, and even then most of the theories about erosion and water damage, putting the Sphinx in contact with water over 8,000 years BC.

The Sphinx has been a hot topic among people like Dr. Zawahi, who does agree that the date they are now looking at for it's construction is much older then original thought. Perhaps 6,500 years or older, about the time of the Vedas in India.

AP said...


As far as this comment you made

".Having said that, what I cannot understand is why so much time, energy and resources is devoted to ultimately pointless enquiries in modern physics? As far as I can tell the only benefits of Cerne have been by-products such as www. and MRI scanners. Clever people spend so much time working out arcane stuff to do with black holes, the mass of protons etc and we are still reliant on highly polluting energy sources.What NH says is no more useful than anyone else"

This is absolutly incorrect and a severe underestimation of what physics has provided to the field of medicine and other fields. And it's also CERN, not Cerne.

You do understand that virtually all advancements allowing health care practitioners to save lives and diagnose condition is due to innovations in physics which led to MRI's and as you say "www". All computer science, GPS, putting things in orbit, air defense, most importantly being in the medical arena has been attributed to these discovers.

At CERN, the research they are doing is monumental, and the research nuclear physicist are doing is also monumental. In short, I will say that no, knowing what the Egyptians had would not prevent disasters like the Oil Gulf spill, I'm sorry but that is simply incorrect.

I have worked and still work in emergency planning, and only good preparedness efforts would have prevented the oil spill.

Also, since Oil is going to peak and eventually (very soon) run out, your children's generation will have to deal with extreme situations while they starve, or major geopolitical realignment once Oil goes. It currently is what EVERYTHING that has two or more moving parts runs on, and also is used for hundreds of other plastics, to power the machines that harvest your food, and to provide transportation to the world. With out it, everything comes to a grinding halt.

Well, not if the hard working Nuclear physicist who are trying about 4 or 5 different methods to achieve long term sustainable nuclear fusion which can be exported to the national infrastructure power grid. This is perhaps the most significant area of almost all sciences which has practically value, almost the same as medical advancements in cancer. Nuclear Fusion is a big deal, and it wouldn't be possible if not for guys like the ones who work at CERN or with similar high-energy physics.

Lucy said...

first, my apologies for misspelling CERN. My mistake, however, does not detract from my point. I also confused you with the use of the word 'pointless'. I should have used some word like 'misdirected'.

Regardless of whatever amazing, wonderful, life-saving, life-enhancing benefits have been derived from CERN, millions of money were not spent on setting it up either to improve medical diagnostics or international communications. CERN's own website makes reference to the search for matter and anti matter, Big Bang, etc etc.

My point is when are we going to realise what a waste of time and money CERN is in terms of solving our problem of sustainable energy? The same waste applies to other installations such as the ITER project near Oxford.

I have no doubt that I am fairly ignorant. My understanding of physics is limited. I would not seek to claim otherwise. Regardless of my inadequacies, I still think that those who are better qualified should spend quality time researching what Bob refers to as the 'historical anomalies'.

In principle I cannot see why it is not possible that the ancient Egyptians and others knew how to manipulate the laws of physics in ways that we have yet to discover. In practice there is no satisfactory answer to the question as to how they cut and moved massive blocks of granite hundreds of miles with only limited means at their disposal. These blocks are the evidence; the Kings Chamber is open to the public. It is the method that is hidden.We need to spend less time staring into space, and more time looking at what is already at our feet.

By the way, no amount of nuclear fusion is going to bring the harvest in - unless you think that combine harvesters hook up to the grid. And if we have a repeat of the 1859 Carrington Event, none of it is going to be a pretty sight.

I fully acknowledge the service that Bob has done us all in tackling NH. Cult status should always be questioned. But in dismissing NH, it is a pity to ridicule all propositions that appear illogical. We would never have got to quantum physics if people hadn't dared to think differently

Anonymous said...

Just read this on Haramein's Facebook page:

I am pleased to announce that my latest paper, The Schwarzschild Proton, has passed peer review - Hooray! - and is now published at the American Institute of Physics. The link on their site is here,, where you may click on the right hand corner to see the table of contents PDF of the book. The Schwarzschild Proton is on page 95.

Bob said...

Oh jeez. Something else for fans to crow about.

I've already given my thoughts on this here.

The physics in that paper is disastrously naive. Appearing in conference proceedings doesn't suddenly change that, unfortunately.

But I'll have a look when the full text is available and see if the final version has miraculously developed into something that makes sense.

Anonymous said...

I have watched the 45 10 minute videos on YouTube and I was amazed with Nassim!
I am not an expert in maths and physics so I can't comment either way if the claims are accurate or not. However, there were many other aspects to his presentations which were related to history, religion, ancient civilisations and crop circles etc.
There must be SOMETHING in if not all, but SOME of what he says because it left me feeling hungry, inspired for more information.
Things aren't always what they seem and current physics / quantum mechanics can't explain everything.
String theory can't be proved but many people believe it.
God can't be proved to exist but still, people believe.
I think that everyone should be working together to find the truth and even if Nassim is only right about one little thing he says, then that is worth enough to listen to the rest with respect.
He had me interested from the point when he talked about school - It's true! We are told so much and we just take it as solid truth. There are issues with things we are told and there are always bits that don't make sense.
BOB...I'm interested to know what you think about the other areas Nassim talks about, such as the great pyramids and the bible.
Do you think that any tiny part of the whole rings true?

Anonymous said...

...I'm also interested to know if you skeptics believe in god?
Would make a great contrast as there is no scientific evidence for this, yet it seems it's ok for a huge amount of the population to go around believing that the bible is true, when a vast amount of the bible has many flaws.

Anonymous said...

...oh one more thing.
A physicist is someone who studies or practices physics, so anyone can be a physicist.

I think people get too obsessed with qualifications these days. I see it everywhere. It can actually hold back progress in jobs etc because managers think that they must be the best person for the job.
Great minds don't always come from "educational" institutions.
Many people gain qualifications and can spout off a load of theories but can't apply their knowledge and solve everyday problems.

Intelligence and knowledge are not the same thing.

If we don't be brave and try out new ideas, we'll never move forward.

Creativity and imagination can be a root to the truth too :-)))))))))

Bob said...

Hi Anonymous

Thanks for your comment, you've raised some very good points.

One thing that is excellent about Nassim is that he can leave some people inspired and hungry for more information. I'm actually very supportive of this.

This is the reason I have written this blog, and the reason I try to question everything he says and encourage others to do so too, rather than trying to 'take him down'. I like the fact that people get to see him, and some are inspired to start exploring for themselves.

But there is a negative side. It's a real problem with the way he presents his ideas that makes what he does extremely misleading.

There are two ways to become inspired and hungry for more information. You can say to yourself:

(a) "wow, this is amazing! I really like his ideas! But are they really true? Is he a reliable source of information? Is there any evidence? Does what he's saying make sense? What happens if I test these ideas, or ask difficult questions of them?"


(b) "wow, this is amazing! I really like his ideas! They must be true! Where can I find more people who will confirm them for me? Where can I find more information that agrees with what he is saying? How can I hit back at non-believers?"

I'd love everyone to practice (a). Unfortunately, Haramein devotes much of his presentations, his website, his communications with others, to encouraging everyone to practice (b).

The thing about (b) is that it feels great, it feels expansive and exciting, but if you think about it, it's extremely narrow-minded. It is so exciting because it is filled with excuses to not look carefully at evidence, to not ask questions, to just believe. That's exciting because, if we're honest, asking questions is a bit dull, and it'd be great to just believe something sometimes, and not have to bother with all that stuff.

(b) feels open-minded, but it sure as hell isn't. If that's your thing, then fair enough... it's certainly a lot of people's thing. My concern is that Haramein leads people into this way of thinking, and encourages them to feel they are being open-minded, and then they go off into the world attacking people who think about things in different ways to them.

This is prejudice, and it's arrogance, and it's precisely what the world doesn't need. I'm not accusing you of this at all - you seem very willing to ask questions and learn, and that is a good thing.

The solution, I think, is to keep asking questions, let yourself be inspired hungry for information by doing (a), and don't fall for (b).

Bob said...

Now I've made that point, I'll come back to your comment.

First off, I can tell you that his maths and physics is naive and awful. And you're free to investigate and debate any of this here. I've presented enough evidence and reasoning on this blog to enable you to investigate this for yourself in various ways without you needing to be an expert.

As you say, anyone who practices physics is a physicist. The reason I say Haramein isn't a physicist has nothing to do with qualifications (read my blog - I've never mentioned that). It's because Haramein doesn't practice physics.

What Haramein does is use scientific jargon and the illusion of being an expert to get non-scientific people to believe that he knows what he's talking about. He is very good at this. This is why he has lots of non-scientific fans, and no fans who understand any of his science.

The 'physics' he presents, is actually meaningless. Some of it is pretty, and it looks great if you don't understand it, but if you do, you'll see that it's empty. He doesn't understand physics properly - he just knows how to use it as a means of rhetoric, to excite people and draw them to his brand. Which is quite a lucrative brand.

On crop circles and ancient civilisations, I don't consider myself qualified to make any judgement on any theories. Unlike Haramein, I'm only going to try to explain things that I understand myself. But having observed him discussing physics, I see absolutely no grounds to trust him to tell an accurate story on anything when he can please his fans more by jumping to sensationalist conclusions instead. So I'd urge you to do (a), not (b), and investigate it for yourself.

"There must be SOMETHING in if not all, but SOME of what he says because it left me feeling hungry, inspired for more information." - no, that just means he's a good story-teller and good at rhetoric. Don't start with "it must be true" - start with "is it true?", it's much more open-minded.

I have never started with "it must be false". If I did, then you'd be right to accuse me of not being "brave" or "trying out new ideas". I've tried it out in all sorts of ways, asking deeper questions of his science, and it has fallen down every time.

"Things aren't always what they seem and current physics / quantum mechanics can't explain everything." - I agree completely.

"String theory can't be proved but many people believe it. 
God can't be proved to exist but still, people believe." - I agree completely.

"I think that everyone should be working together to find the truth and even if Nassim is only right about one little thing he says, then that is worth enough to listen to the rest with respect." - yes, we should be working together to find the truth. What I have consistently observed is that Nassim's followers do (b), and he encourages them to do this. This is not working together to find the truth. And misleading people in order to gain a following is not worthy of respect.

"Creativity and imagination can be a root to the truth too" - Definitely! In fact it's essential, even in science. In science, it is essential to follow up your inspiration and creativity with (a) and not (b). In art, of course, you are free to do as you please :-)

Do I believe in god? Personally, no. But that's not a scientific statement, it's a personal belief, and I wouldn't criticise anyone else for doing differently.

I hope that makes some sense and answers some of your questions.

Anonymous said...

...WOW BOB, thanks for taking the time to reply with such depth. I can see that you are very passionate about physics. I'm sure that you are very knowledgeable in that area.

I respect your opinions and you should say exactly what you think. Everyone should. Naturally, people don't always have the same opinions but in this case, I think the goal for everyone is the same.

I don't think that Nassim is trying to force anyone to believe his theories though. I'm sure he even mentioned in his presentation that people should research this stuff for themselves, which is what I'm trying to do. I feel I must defend him on that point. I am a follower of his ideas but I don't take them as fact. I am also interested in numerous other physicists, who's ideas are very different. So, you see, not all of his followers do think in your (b) category. I and my friends are thinking in the (a) and I'm sure many more are too.

I am not a non scientific person either. I have studdied chemistry at university and worked in an analytical laboratory for 10 years. As you can imagine, I analyse everything and I am always doubting anything I can't prove. I am the most open minded person I know and I certainly don't think "it must be true" because I connected with it so well. I was just saying that I was inspired because it seemed to make so much sense. I'm not talking about the pure physics, but the whole thing.

I will watch his videos again and decide for myself which parts I believe and understand.

The main point I want to make is that the videos have left me and others I know feeling inspired to do more research (a style). That must be a good thing for Nassim? Even if only a few are in (a) mode.

He does have a certain gift with telling the story but I don't let that cloud things.

Bob said...

Great! Good luck with the research :)

Anonymous said...

...Thanks Bob.
I really hope that one day there will be a true, robust theory for everything that the whole globe can agree on, which answers all of the questions we ask and can't yet answer.

It may happen soon or it may take generations more. We may even face extinction before we find the answer.

I feel that we must grasp as many ideas as we can. This way our chances of getting a real solution is improved. Many ideas may come to nothing, but they can trigger other ideas and cause a ripple of thoughts that eventually lead to something special.

Many real discoveries came from ideas that were not quite right, but acted as pointers in the right direction.

I feel like this about Nassim's ideas. He's trying to envelope many mysteries and there may be some aspects that need work, but I really think he makes a lot of fantastic observations.

I hope that he can continue to work on his ideas and come up with more evidence to confirm his theories.

I guess that the fact that he isn't very well known in the media etc means that he hasn't managed to convince the authorities on physics. Or maybe they are just worried that they will need to change all the text books ;-)...No, seriously though, If his theories do break though, then I guess we'll be hearing about it everywhere.

Good luck to you too Bob in your search for the truth, because as of yet, there isn't a single human on Earth who really fully understands the whole reality. Maybe our brains are just not capable of seeing the whole picture because we are limited by our sensory filters? Take infinity, for example. My brain has major problems with this concept :-)))

Bob said...

I genuinely wish you well. But I very much hope you'll realise sooner rather than later just how underhand and low this particular inspiring character is in making the claims that he does.

The view that his physics is utterly fake is not merely an opinion, it truly is appallingly bad, and it's a disgrace that he passes it off as if it were real research.

Grasping as many ideas as we can is not the answer. We need honest, capable seekers after truth - of which there are many. We do not need the charisma of charlatans, however exciting it may seem to someone not trained in the language that he is misusing.

My friend, the authorities are not worried about changing the text books, believe me.

Anonymous said...

...Lucy. Like you, I haven't read the whole blog, but I just caught the section with your comments! I would love to read your book! This sounds just like what I've been looking for to compare NH ideas with. Your comment was like a ray of light just now :-)))))
I too believe that ancient civilisations had knowledge that has been lost or forgotten today. The orientation of pyramids is fascinating and their purpose is even more so!

Anonymous said...

...The text book thing was just a joke.

I know where you're coming from with the whole physics thing. You want something you can relate with the laws you have based your whole world on. It must fit into what is already know. I agree to a certain extent.
Again, the physics parts were a little difficult for me, but I will watch it again and do my best to understand it. The other parts, however, I understood perfectly and it's these, I guess that made we want to keep watching, not the physics.
I don't know, I guess everyone has a different perspective and background.

I'm interested, do you believe in the possibility of life beyond Earth, time travel, or a multiverse?
As a physicist, I value your thoughts on this.

Bob said...

"You want something you can relate with the laws you have based your whole world on" - ok, thanks for the patronising swipe.

If you don't know any physics, who are you to argue as if physicists are locked in some little short-sighted world? What happened to your imagination? What do you think physicists do, play games with little ideas while the rest of the world deals with reality? What a total waste of thousands of silly lives that would be.

Haramein is selling a brand by treating his audience like fools, misleading them into all these theories and taking on a fake authority to add weight to his image. Is this the sign of a good spiritual teacher? Don't you care about that? You're prepared to just ignore that bit, treat it as if it's just the opinion of someone who doesn't really get it?

Check it out, ok?

Anonymous said...

...Also, I didn't say I don't know any physics. I said I am not an expert. That is not the same thing.
It seems that you are getting angry with me and I have tired to be nothing but understanding from both sides of the debate.
I'm shocked by your response. You didn't even answer my question, which I asked with great respect!

Bob said...

I didn't really understand your question. If you're asking my belief, it's a personal matter, it doesn't make sense to ask me 'as a physicist'.

Personally? I don't know. It somehow seems unfeasible that there is no life anywhere else in the universe. But that's just a hunch, and many unfeasible things are now known to be true, so the honest answer is I don't know.

As a physicist, do I know of any absolute principles that definitively rule out time travel or multiverses (whatever that means)? No.

Anonymous said...

...It seems that one of my comments did not come up before the last one.

I said sorry, and I wasn't trying to be patronising at all. I was just pointing out the difficulties in changing our opinions, when the rules that create our universe appear to be so fixed.

Thanks for trying to answer my questions, and yes, they are mainly opinion, but some physics can be applied form a rational answer in each case.

I have taken a look at the Resonance Project site, under the debate tab. I think I will need to take some time to read it all, including the links.

Thanks, Zoe

Bob said...

Hi Zoe

No problem, and my apologies for overreacting. I can't blame anyone for trying to keep an open mind or trying to find some kind of balance with all this.

All I can say is that it's very easy for anyone trained in the language of physics to see exactly what he is doing. It's not a matter of any different way of thinking - what he presents as physics is grossly incompetent.

He does it in a very clever way - most of the references he links to are irrelevant, but they contain enough of the same words that he's misusing to look vaguely convincing.

Obviously people have to somehow figure all this out for themselves, which is a lot to ask.

Anonymous said...

I plan to go through the videos again in bits and write notes on each step of his logic. Maybe then, I can reflect on both sides better.
I may return here with more comments when I'm done. I may also go through all of your explanations to grasp what you are trying to get across.
I always try to look at things from as many perspectives possible. Sometimes, others might notice things that give extra insight.
Thanks again for your contribution to the debate. Any true theory should withstand criticism.


Daniel said...

Excellent work & what you've does completely draw into question the validity of harameins work. I've always been suspicious of what he's been claiming.

Bob what do you think of marko rodins work?

Bob said...

Thanks Daniel.

What do I think of Rodin? Not a lot.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob, Loek , Steve:

My name is Gus. I couldn't be bothered making an account beforehand. Sorry.

I have throughly enjoyed the last hour and a half reading this discussion.Many of the points raised by the Nassimians are the same ones I come across creationists, fundamentalists and other "ists" or "sophers" that prefer to start from a useful or attractive fiction rather than reality. By reality I mean a scientific reality.

I personally think that to have a meaningful discussion about reality one must have a discussion about scientific reality. That's because a scientific reality is testable, falsifiable, repeatable...The rest are beliefs and opinions on beliefs are however pleasant and attractive, noise.

If somethings is falsifiable then it is something that is worthwhile investigating.
This is not to say we shouldn't be open to new discussions on the contrary it is precisely what opens discussions, but a meaningful discussion nonetheless is provided by discussing what is known about the universe and challenging it with the scientific method.
Science, what people don't understand I think is not a noun,a name, its a verb, based on the scientific method.
To interact in this world of science meaningfully you must engage in the scientific method. belief , the acceptance of an attractive or personally useful fiction as reality, is not part of that dialogue.
Someone said "Science replaces personal prejudice with public knowledge" however uncertain a scientific truth is, its all we will ever have to speak about when discussing objective truths.

Thanks for talking about Nassim, someone sent me a link to his discussion about a comet the size of Jupiter that went into the sun and his words :"should have altered the gravitation of the earth but didnt" , to this pearl he added "we shouldn't be here" and when asked how come we were he replied "grace". Real story.
His video presents him as a physicist:

Bob said...

Hi Gus. Thanks, and I agree about the scientific method. It's understandable that many people don't want to base their own personal beliefs around the scientific method, I don't think any reasonable person would have a problem with that.

But there's something very twisted about these people redefining science according to their prejudices, selling themselves as a real scientists, dismissing every decent scientist on the planet and encouraging their followers to use words like 'mainstream' and 'standard model' as insults. You end up getting yelled at by arrogant morons who think they're the very definition of open-minded. It's just messed up.

The comet clip is a classic. It amazes me that people will take that seriously.

Luckily some of the people who are drawn to Haramein are willing and able to think for themselves and to consider ideas they might not immediately agree with. Otherwise I wouldn't bother :-)

muzuzuzus said...

Hey Bob

The reason I came upon your blog and critique of Nassim was by accident. I actually had Googled 'Debunking Marko Rodin'. I think it is good to look at as many sides as possible.

I am not scientific in that I am crap at math, hate all the techical sounding lingo you guys use--find it boring, and hey--we are all diverse.
BUT I have deep interest in mythology, entheogens, UFO phenomena--and basically trying to find out why this world is in such a mess.
I look at pattern, and one pattern I have noticed is that whenever I have said to other 'science advocates' at 'science oriented forums' about the 'state of the world' they will deny it, and claim it is all great and I am the problem---hmmmm

The way I would try and figure out where you are coming from is ask you some questions--if your willing?

What are your thoughts about consciousness?
What do you think about Near death experience, and OBEs? And about parapsychology, and about the UFO and 'ET' phenomena? AND about so-called 'radical new energy science' whereby people like Eugene Mallove etc claim that 'offical science' suppresses new ideas and has become more like religion? I dont want to inundate thats enough for now ;)
The whole reason I found you is my trying to understand if aether physics helps us understand UFO phenomena better than the accepted science.
it IS hard to explore because lol I am not a scientist :))) But explore it will...

Bob said...

Hi Muzuzuzus. Not sure I really understand what you mean, but let's see.

I don't see that the state of the world is in any more of a mess than any other time in history.

I like consciousness, I think it's good and everyone should have one.

NDE, OBE, psi, UFO, ET, etc. I have no idea about at all. I've never seen any evidence myself, nor come across anyone who I can see any reason to trust who advocates any of it, though I can see every reason for people to want to believe in it even if it's not true. So from where I'm sitting, which is in a position of not really knowing anything, all I can say is that the latter seems more likely to me. Other people clearly have other views, which I'm in no position to deny.

I don't take a stance on, or want to argue about, things that I don't really understand.

However I'm much less tolerant of the majority of 'radical new energy science people' because I can very clearly see them talking bullshit and manipulating their audiences, playing on their prejudices, telling people what they want to hear instead of being honest.

Science doesn't suppress new ideas at all.

People get very attached to their ideas, especially if it wins them followers, and scientists will (quite rightly) weigh up these ideas and judge many of them as having no basis in reality.

This seems harsh to people who believe they have a right to start their own movement based on their own version of the reality regardless of whether it has any basis in truth at all. So they cry foul. It's a bit pathetic... or it would be if they didn't get so many followers.

You're right, it is hard to explore. I wish you luck with it.

The only advice I can offer is to try VERY hard not to cling to any idea that you don't fully understand just because you like it.

All over the internet I see people deciding what 'science' they believe based on whether they like the idea of it or not. Or whether they like the look of the person telling it. It's very understandable human thing to do, but it gets people into some truly ridiculous ideas.

If you're interested in art, go for what you like. That's fine. If you're interested in science, just remember that what you like is usually wrong.

That's what I love about science. The only way to do it is to just keep letting go.

muzuzuzus said...

don't see that the state of the world is in any more of a mess than any other time in history.

Oooops, thats always the reasion I have got from those who call themselves scientists. YET this view is not shared by many other, some who are also scientists. Hmmmm...How about nuclear weaponry. Or the 20th century being one of the bloodiest in world history. The threat to nature--masses of species going extinct. The ruination of the soil. Ongoing desertification. The cutting won of the rainforests. The growing cancers in the post industrial civlization.

I like consciousness, I think it's good and everyone should have one.

not a very serious reply there Bob. I am surprised for such an important question. I mean--do you understand it scientifically?

NDE, OBE, psi, UFO, ET, etc. I have no idea about at all. I've never seen any evidence myself, nor come across anyone who I can see any reason to trust who advocates any of it, though I can see every reason for people to want to believe in it even if it's not true. So from where I'm sitting, which is in a position of not really knowing anything, all I can say is that the latter seems more likely to me. Other people clearly have other views, which I'm in no position to deny.

I personally have experience an OBE, and I assure you it is VERy real. Regarding your response to my question about consciousness, I think we can agree you do not know, like me? Can you NOT know? :)

I don't take a stance on, or want to argue about, things that I don't really understand.

I think that answer is full of integrity. BUT we CAn speculate, and for such important questions--if your prepared to LOOK there is a growing amount of information about all this. First one needs to look, right?

However I'm much less tolerant of the majority of 'radical new energy science people' because I can very clearly see them talking bullshit and manipulating their audiences, playing on their prejudices, telling people what they want to hear instead of being honest.

Fair enough. But do you accept that there may be corruption in established science? By this I include measures to deny people knowedge that could affect the economic stability of a rich section? OR do you think that our whole accepted scientific enterpreise is 'pure' and unaffected by corporate-government pressures to conform

Science doesn't suppress new ideas at all.

This you seem remarkably sure of! Do you have evidence 'it' doesn't?

People get very attached to their ideas, especially if it wins them followers, and scientists will (quite rightly) weigh up these ideas and judge many of them as having no basis in reality.

But couldn't that attitude infect so-called established science? Ie., that if a theory has many 'followers' and much money and power behind it, that that could affect their reponse to any ideas that could undermine theirs? Especially if these new ideas would threaten economic power of a very few?

muzuzuzus said...

part 2

This seems harsh to people who believe they have a right to start their own movement based on their own version of the reality regardless of whether it has any basis in truth at all. So they cry foul. It's a bit pathetic... or it would be if they didn't get so many followers.

Could you not even entertain the notion that a power structure could become corrupted and seek to suppress any new ideas that threaten its main tenets. I mean didn't this happen with the Church hierarchy which refused at one time to accept the invitation of looking through a telescope?

You're right, it is hard to explore. I wish you luck with it.

thanks. We have to ask questions. Poeple cannot be 'out' because they dont 'know science'. Ie., we are all human and explore reality in our own ways--the fact that I do it in my way does not mean you or Einstein, etc are better then me, agreed?

The only advice I can offer is to try VERY hard not to cling to any idea that you don't fully understand just because you like it.

yes--that can be hard to do. One can sometimes feel having to defend some avenue of information one has come across.
Do you fully understand quantum physics? Can you be sure the Big Bang theory is absolutely right?

All over the internet I see people deciding what 'science' they believe based on whether they like the idea of it or not. Or whether they like the look of the person telling it. It's very understandable human thing to do, but it gets people into some truly ridiculous ideas.

yes true, but you cannot expect people who do not understand math nor the scientific lingo to NOT be interested in science which sees itself as the arbiter of reality. often scientists themselves have become so specialized that they often dont see a bigger picture. But obviously what you say is pertinent regarding the very subject of this thread, Nassim lol--what with his 'cool look' and mantra style/gift of the gab shpeeling out all this 'all oness ness diatribe couched in scientificy terms. YET even IF he is a charlatan, you cannot question the spirit to look for a science which recognizes deeper spiritual meaning of reality

If you're interested in art, go for what you like. That's fine. If you're interested in science, just remember that what you like is usually wrong.

Why do you separate art from science, from life? I have a problem with this and blame it on the so-called 'education' system which categorizes reality into conflicting units.
Regarding science do you mean then that what I would HATE would be ..right?

That's what I love about science. The only way to do it is to just keep letting go.

now...i really can feel you there. That is what I often talk about and encourage--letting go. So it's interesting you say this. I would like you to go into more what you mean there if you will.

Letting go must also im[ply letting go of tradition. yet you seem to argue that science as we know it SHUNS tradition, and is a completely let-go enterprise? Which seems to me NOT letting go. It feels to me you are hanging on--or else you would admit you are not sure.

Can you explain this video in the science that you know?
Chi Energy Amazing Footage

Bob said...

Whoa, too many questions... I can't deal with this much at the same time. Can you keep it to one or two things at a time?

Bob said...

thats always the reasion I have got – I didn't give a reason, just an opinion.

do you understand it scientifically? – No.

First one needs to look, right? – I do look.

do you think that our whole accepted scientific enterprise is 'pure' – Do I think every scientist is pure? Of course not. They're human. They’re susceptible to views and lobbies, some more than others. But when people complain that they can't get their views accepted in leading scientific establishments or publications anywhere in the world, that's not because of any conspiracy. Unless you believe that all the world's top scientists have got together to agree on some political ideology? That's not what they're like. The majority of them are truth-seekers, and they loathe ideologies.

If you've lived and worked with scientists, you'll know that conformity is pretty rare among them! If you haven't, I'd ask you to withhold judgement until you have.

didn't this happen with the Church hierarchy - The Church relies on doctrine and conformity. Science relies on continual change, revolution and heterodoxy.

the fact that I do it in my way does not mean you or Einstein, etc are better then me, agreed? - Your experience of life? Agreed. Your ideas about spacetime? Absolutely not! Einstein knows better.

you cannot expect people who do not understand math nor the scientific lingo to NOT be interested in science - I'd LOVE more people to be interested in science. But if they cling to whatever they like the sound of, it ain’t science. Scientific insights are always much more subtle, much more strange, much more wondrous than anyone thinks.

Why do you separate art from science, from life? I have a problem with this and blame it on the so-called 'education' system which categorizes reality into conflicting units. - I don't see them as conflicting in any way.

But science has nothing to do with what you happen to like. If you don't like that, well who cares. The universe doesn't revolve around your feelings :-)

Regarding science do you mean then that what I would HATE would be ..right? - No. I mean what's right is beyond what anyone likes or hates. It's beyond any views you have. Letting go is the key to all science.

All scientific ideas are constantly thrown up in the air, tested to destruction, questioned incessantly. The only ones that make it into "mainstream science" are the ideas that are not only useful, but have withstood whatever kind of creative techniques the entire scientific world has come up with to try to knock them down. If they're still standing, they make it into the "mainstream". And even then, it's provisional.

It only takes one experiment to destroy a theory.

Believe me, the brightest most creative people in the world have tried their utmost to undermine everything we now see as mainstream. And absolutely anyone is always welcome to try.

Letting go must also imply letting go of tradition. yet you seem to argue that science as we know it SHUNS tradition, and is a completely let-go enterprise? Which seems to me NOT letting go. - I don't understand. Yes, letting go of tradition is crucial.

Can you explain this video in the science that you know? - Science isn't about having answers to everything. It's about having some excellent answers to some things, and being honest about what is not known.

I don't mind there being things I can't understand. It doesn't make me want to jump to conclusions about what's going on.

If I see someone jumping to conclusions very easily, relying on whatever explanation they happen to like rather than being honest about how much they know and how much they do not know, then I know better than to trust them, no matter how much I might like their ideas.

muzuzuzus said...

(B=Bob M=Muz)
M-do you understand it [consciousness] scientifically?
B– No.

OK. I find that very deep. Consciousness is NOT understood scientifically. Yet in this 'scientific culture' there is control OF consciousness. Via propaganda techniques, and its war on drugs which include war on entheogens. What have you as scientist to say about this state of affairs?

B-But science has nothing to do with what you happen to like. If you don't like that, well who cares. The universe doesn't revolve around your feelings :-)

M-IF I find a 'scientific truth' imposed on mine and others (including other species') lives, which I find irrational, oppressive and unfeeling, I will very much challenge, question it, and speak out against it--which is what I do.

Letting go must also imply letting go of tradition. yet you seem to argue that science as we know it SHUNS tradition, and is a completely let-go enterprise? Which seems to me NOT letting go.
B- I don't understand. Yes, letting go of tradition is crucial.

M-I mean you seem to cling to an idea that mainstream science/tradition is 'pure' and beyond reproach. For example--its Big bang theory?
M-Can you explain this video [of 'Chi' linked above] in the science that you know?
B - Science isn't about having answers to everything. It's about having some excellent answers to some things, and being honest about what is not known.

M-But science DOES include speculation, right. So what are your thoughts on it please?

B-I don't mind there being things I can't understand. It doesn't make me want to jump to conclusions about what's going on.

If I see someone jumping to conclusions very easily, relying on whatever explanation they happen to like rather than being honest about how much they know and how much they do not know, then I know better than to trust them, no matter how much I might like their ideas.

M--well yes. I also try to keep critical thinking too. But you can ALSo overdo that and become a hard-nosed cynic (which I am not accusing you of. Just pointing out a danger)Plus I am always wary people askin for money.
BUT we HAVE to have imagination and look at the bigger picture. Otherwise new ideas wont happen.

M-What do you think about the UFo phenomena? (ooops--too many questions?)

Bob said...

What have you as scientist to say about this state of affairs? - that's politics, not science.

If I find a 'scientific truth' imposed on mine and others (including other species') lives, which I find irrational, oppressive and unfeeling, I will very much challenge, question it, and speak out against it--which is what I do. - fair enough. Again, that sounds like politics. This isn't a place to argue about politics.

Science is about trying to figure out what's going on in the universe, how nature works, and whether we can make the right kit to get some stuff to happen. It's nothing to do with imposing things on anyone.

When it comes to education, doesn't it make sense to teach the ideas that have been tested to absolute destruction and have stayed standing? When it comes to health, doesn't it make sense to employ medical techniques that have been tested scientifically too? And when it comes to engineering and safety, the same?

What's the alternative... the only alternative would be to ditch the stuff that's been tested in favour of stuff that some dude in charge happens to think is nice. And there's always a ton of pressure to do that, as I'm sure you're aware.

Haramein does it. All pseudoscientists do it. And often people do it for the best of intentions - many people honestly believe that their personal views can override years of tests and careful observations. That strikes me as arrogant, unethical and dangerous.

But what if they're right? Well how would we know? Put their ideas through testing like everything else.

There is pressure from all over the place to ditch real results for personal preferences by people in positions of power over others, in workplaces or schools or governments or hospitals. I don't see how that can be a good thing.

I mean you seem to cling to an idea that mainstream science/tradition is 'pure' and beyond reproach. For example--its Big bang theory? - I very clearly said that I do no such thing.

Big bang theory, like everything else, is accepted because it's stood up to everything that's been thrown at it so far. Look again at what I said about the 'mainstream'.

Nothing is beyond reproach. Scientists don't (or shouldn't!) cling to any ideas. It's their job to test any idea to destruction until they realise that there's nothing they can do to knock it down... then, if they choose to, they start relying on it.

If anyone can trash the Big Bang hypothesis, they'll become scientific superstars and be remembered for centuries. It would make their career, they'd be sorted for life. Nothing is sacred. If you want rid of the Big Bang, it's right there waiting to be got rid of! Whenever you feel you can replace the things it's explained with something else, it's yours.

But science DOES include speculation, right. So what are your thoughts on it please? - I'd say someone got inspired about chi and made a video showing some acupuncture and some paper catching fire.

you can ALSo overdo that and become a hard-nosed cynic ... Plus I am always wary people askin for money.
BUT we HAVE to have imagination and look at the bigger picture. Otherwise new ideas wont happen.
- Agreed.

What do you think about the UFo phenomena? - you asked that already :-)

muzuzuzus said...

(B=Bob M=Muz)

M-What have you as scientist to say about this state of affairs? -

B-that's politics, not science.

M-Actually you cannot separate the two. This is the 'age of science'. For anything--in any institution--to be accepted and taken seriously it has to be understood to be scientifically apt. Politcal science?
The manhattan project was very much such an amalgamation with the encouragement of Einstein, and this partnership actually in reality did Hiroshima. So please Bob dont be ingenous?

B-If I find a 'scientific truth' imposed on mine and others (including other species') lives, which I find irrational, oppressive and unfeeling, I will very much challenge, question it, and speak out against it--which is what I do.

B - fair enough. Again, that sounds like politics. This isn't a place to argue about politics.

M-Is 'testing' on animals science or politics? ...And do you think the poor animal cares which?!

B-Science is about trying to figure out what's going on in the universe, how nature works, and whether we can make the right kit to get some stuff to happen. It's nothing to do with imposing things on anyone.
M-See above replies

B-When it comes to education, doesn't it make sense to teach the ideas that have been tested to absolute destruction and have stayed standing? When it comes to health, doesn't it make sense to employ medical techniques that have been tested scientifically too? And when it comes to engineering and safety, the same?
M-ahaaaa so now you seem to be supporting tradition which you said before you didn't and that science was letting go. But now you back the so-called 'education' system which drills into millions of children's heads what HAS to be conformed to.
Also remember that school itself is not a voluntary choice--it is enforced. Have you read anything of John Taylor Gatto?

B--I am not against medical science as such. Someone very close to me has had surgery that has been amazing. Such skill. cannot be ignored that IF people want to make a choice of alternative healing which for example could involve hashish oil, marijuana, and entheogenic healing---these are forbidden and you can be sent to jail for trying them. Now something is VERy wrong with this.
You say that is politics. But to me that is very naive,and assumes that there are not people making great profits in the medicial prefession and pharmaceutical industry that would not want competition--especially with natural substances they cant patent!

Bob said...

Actually you cannot separate the two. - Yes I can.

M-ahaaaa so now you seem to be supporting tradition which you said before you didn't and that science was letting go. But now you back the so-called 'education' system which drills into millions of children's heads what HAS to be conformed to. - No I'm not, and no I don't. Absolutely not.

That wasn't my experience of learning science. I do some teaching myself, and that's not what I do, nor do any teachers that I know. If that was your experience then that's a real shame. Education should be about trying to encourage a healthy questioning curiosity about the world, and hopefully a love for it too, and opening up new ways of understanding. It's not a tradition, as I said.

these are forbidden and you can be sent to jail for trying them. Now something is VERy wrong with this.
You say that is politics.
- Yes it is.

to me that is very naive,and assumes that there are not people making great profits in the medicial prefession and pharmaceutical industry - Nooo... I'm not assuming that at all. What I said is what I said.

You seem quite keen to read whatever the hell you like into my replies, which is rather shitty. Never mind. Thanks for getting me thinking anyway.

Silas said...

Hey, bob.

Although I might not have the proper knowledge for a proper understanding of the posts i've just read. After all, not only I study psychology, no physics: i'm Brazilian and learned English by myself. Even then, I believe some comments might be interesting.

If you apply the Jungian theory of the archetypes to see why this man makes such claims, and, specially, why people are so eager to believe it’ll all make sense. The main point here is: these are religious values, not anything related to science. I wouldn’t be surprised if he said spirits told him this theory.

Though, as Foucault stated (don’t have the quote in English), the intellectuals, the scientists, are the ones who bring the truth. Many people accept absurd claims for the fact that they’re supposedly made by renowned scientists. They just tend to see them as prophets.

The problem is, a world lead by this class tends to be spiritually empty. Not that I believe in spirits at all: It’s kind of an emotional condition. People need meaning for living, and that is something science cannot provide. But common sense is losing the sacred grounds, the religious meanings to life, and life tends to look like an “emotional black hole”: you end up sucked by it, unable to fight it’s might. Of course I’m joking about the black hole, don’t get me worng.

That need for a meaning beyond what we understand, is what Jung says in this video (7:10):

Neither a social order, nor scientific paradigm can ever suppress our need to seek a meaning. Though to many people, the old religious beliefs seem too ridiculous to believe. They need someone that can be trusted. They need some hero, some savior, redeemer, to come out of science and show them all the there is something more to give us meaning. In a society guided mostly by science and technology, you can’t just pretend things are not there, ignore the value of scientific claims. Unless, of course, you’re deeply ignorant, which is common around here.

Guess you watched contact. It will make my point a lot more clear if you have.

The work you’ve made is pretty great. It helps people who don’t have the proper knowledge, like me, to have means to question his claims. Though I didn’t really believe him. He has these eyes, like a man with blind faith. Didn’t seem like a scientist at all. Anyway, many people just can’t understand what was written: they lack the basic concepts. And they don’t really understand what he says either: it’s all about bringing back spirituality into society. It is a shame, though, that they don’t do it in a way less stupid. It creeps me out how some people just love to misuse scientific terms. Nice blog. I’ll browse it again tomorrow.

Bob said...

Hi Silas

Thanks for you comments. Yes, there are many reasons why Haramein could make claims about oneness and the nature of intuition and other such things. And I agree that many people see scientists as simply prophets, which is a shame, as it's wholly inappropriate. But you're right - most human beings do have spiritual needs, and my feeling is that anyone setting out to deny this is extremely arrogant and entirely out of line. I definitely don't want to set myself against spirituality. That's just not where I'm at.

It seems to me that there are two types of 'spiritual paths' open to people.

One stems from the yearning for certainties and for security, and selecting answers and clinging to them.

The other is the acceptance of what we don't know about the world and about ourselves, and honesty in the face of uncertainties.

The search for meaning can follow either of these paths. There are plenty of faiths or paths that embrace the honesty of the unknown and lead followers to look deeply within themselves and to ask searching questions of themselves and of the universe and of their faith.

Haramein's cult does no such thing. He actively discourages questioning. Any conversation you have with his dedicated followers quickly reveals that they're just not aware of what his ideas actually are. And very often their self-awareness is low: they repeatedly claim they "know" something when it's clearly just an idea they've heard that they like. They don't seem to be able to tell the difference.

Without self-awareness, the desire for security becomes a search for certainties and, as you say, for a saviour. When someone fits the bill, whatever they say will be accepted. This makes people very vulnerable to any charlatans who are able to manipulate them.

The key to this is surely to try to encourage self-awareness and questioning. The information and the discussions are out there for whenever someone begins to ask questions.

Good science should never be incompatible with honest spirituality. As you say, science doesn't pretend to provide the answers as to where to find meaning.

But science will always be incompatible with preachers like Haramein who make claims of certainty where there is clearly no grounds for certainty, and especially when they make scientific claims which are demonstrably false.

People will always want to bring science and spirituality together. I agree with you, it's a shame they don't do it in a way that's less stupid.

Spirituality can be far more sophisticated. If a spiritual path is honest and not based on clinging, no scientist will be in a position to genuinely dispute it, never mind to ridicule it. I know many scientists who are deeply spiritual, and I have a great deal of respect for them.

At the other extreme, it's worth remembering that ALL paranoid delusionals rely on conspiracy theories to explain why so many people ridicule their version of science or their version of spirituality. So if you come across someone who does this, it's sensible to ask some pretty serious questions of them before taking them at their word.

For some reason, millions of people emerge from the education system without a clue about any of this kind of thing. That's a real shame.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a scientist or physicist I am just an average person. I've read Nassim's response and he's definitely above your level. I don't see why you are arrogant unless arrogance is really a cover for jealousy. I don't understand much of what either of you is explaining but i can definitely sense (call it intuition) that he's closer to truth than you are, sir.

Bob said...

Arrogant is a very interesting word. What does it mean to you?

I do try not to be arrogant, but perhaps it means different things to different people. I don't attempt to convince anyone of any opinions based simply on how I feel. I don't present facts that cannot be justified. I'm trying to open a subject up to help others investigate and discuss it themselves.

To me, someone (like Haramein) who makes claims without any justification and dismisses all evidence to the contrary is arrogant. Presenting one's own 'science' as revolutionary and dismissing the entire scientific community as unable to see it... that seems pretty arrogant too!

This blog is concerned with the scientific content of Haramein's ideas. If you consider your own intuition as being superior to actually understanding what's being said, to the extent that you're prepared to make "definite" pronouncements based on it, is that not about as arrogant as it's possible to be?


Anonymous said...

Greetings Bob,

I stumbled onto this forum by accident. First, let me thank you for what you're doing here. My profession is information technology but I have some college physics and I was also a math major. I'm familiar with Mr. Haramein's work and at first I was taken in by it. It all sounded so revolutionary, such a big breakthrough and Nassim was so entertaining. I watched his 8 hour lecture several times. But a lot of what Mr. Haramein was saying just didn't make sense to me.

Then I found your blog. I looked at your critique of Haramein's The Schwarzschild Proton. Alarm bells started ringing all over the place. I've read from many, many sources that the mass of a proton is a very very very small number. Heck, it's been measured with incredible accuracy. But Mr. Haramein's physics calculates it to be 885 million metric tons! Huh! That right there shattered any possibility of taking Mr. Haramein seriously. To all the people defending Mr. Haramein, do you really think that the mass of a proton is almost a billion tons!? I hope not. Because if you do, what the heck kind of education did you get?!

I've experienced a similar phenomena at my previous job. There was a hard core group of people that were Moon landing denyers. They were convinced that the Apollo Moon landing was one big hoax. I spend countless hours arguing with these folks, but no amount of evidence would convince them. To those that think the Apollo Moon missions were a hoax, go to this web site: . It completely refutes all the hoaxers arguments.

I don't want to get off track here, but I think there's a distinct parallel to what Bob is dealing with here and the Moon landing denyers. They both lack sufficient education in the area of required expertise to understand what is involved. So they fall back on their subjective world view and refuse to accept the hard science because they don't understand it.

I also think that this debate highlights the sad state of education in the US today. Here's a link to an 8th grade final exam from 1895:
Sorry, no internet searching or calculators were allowed. How well would today's students do on this exam? 8th grad students, not a chance. High school graduates, many would fail. College grads, I'll bet quite a few would have trouble. So is it any wonder that so many would be taken in by Mr. Haramein's physics. If I could wave a magic wand, high quality education in this country would be available to any that want it at very low cost all the way through college. In addition, physics would be universally taught starting with grammer school, then high school and physics courses would be required for any college degree. It would make for a smart and productive populace with a good understanding of the world they live in and I doubt that Mr. Haramein would have a very big following.

Again Bob, Kudos and thank you for a fantastic job you've done here and I appreciate the vast amount of time and effort that you've put into this discourse.

Loek said...

Hi Anonymous,

did they in 1895 not needed to learn about the Romans or the Chinese in history class? And you did not miss that? :-)
I think it shows what is considered important to learn at that particular time in that particular place. In the Netherlands we were also taught in biology. Nowadays we need to learn different things to our children then 100 years or 2000 years ago.

Furthermore, I do not think to put forward the idea that a proton having that mass is wrong. But stating something without any proof is wrong. He should prove that:
1. the proton does have that mass,
2. the proton seems to have the mass that is measured over and over again, and
3. what is causing this difference and why that makes sense.
New theories might look absurd at the beginning. They should be at least a little as they can explain things, that were previously unknown.

In ancient times rethorica was educated to people. It was at that time common knowledge that the only argument that could convince someone else was 'ipse dicit', i.e. 'you said it yourself'. I think that still counts.

With kind regards,


Bob said...

Thanks Anonymous & Loek

I agree that there are some serious problems in education. The principle alarm bell for me is the sheer volume of people who don't know how to distinguish between knowledge and ideas they like too much to question.

Science is about questioning everything, and the continual and creative quest to find significant evidence against your own hypotheses. Pseudoscience is about having pretty ideas and the search for things that seem to back it up.

The internet is perfect for pseudoscience, and perfect for the customers of pseudoscience: people who want to live in a bubble where their particular version of reality is discussed as if it's true.

The same is true for any kind of crackpottery.

If we're to bring a little sanity to this, it's important that we subject our own arguments to the same scrutiny we expect of others. The 8th grade exam you quoted looks like a hoax to me, and a little investigation shows that it almost certainly is.

Beware the idea you like too much to question!

I don't think we're in some educational dark age. As Loek says, children need to learn different things these days. But it certainly needs to be improved.

It's not just about crackpots and charlatans. Treating ideas that seem intuitively right as if they are knowledge is the source of all the world's prejudices. That is no exaggeration.

muzuzuzus said...

Hey Anonymous (moonlandings)

hey--I am truly not being funny when i say this. But I find it odd how some people call themselves 'anonnymous' even though it is so easy for others to get fonfused who to reply to, because even at this blog there must be several using that tag. Could you not come up with some unique tag? Where you would STILL be 'anonymous'?? (this is also a question to all you anonymouses ;))

OK to reason of my reply. Now--I am not saying where my position is about this--Just please dont be condesecending--I dont appreciate it. I much prefer people have an 'I dont know' kind of vibe rather than an arrogant 'I know it ALL' attitude.
So about the moon landing I am open to both sides--and am examining this. Not full time because i have lots on--but it is intriguing--have you seen this and does your website address it do you know?

Bob said...

Hi Muz,

I think there are a lot of 'anonymouses' because it's quicker to comment without filling in forms. But some people put their name at the end of the comment, which is helpful.

I don't want to be condescending at all. I very definitely don't know it all. But regarding the moon photos, I'm not going to pretend I don't know things that I know perfectly well - that's not what open-mindedness is about.

There are so many reliable and reputable sites that will explain every little detail of what's wrong with the moon landing hoax claims... just have a look around. There are also thousands of forums. If you have any specific questions, ask on one of those. (This isn't one.)

muzuzuzus said...

ahaaaa I had forgotten that. Sorry anonymouses. I realize that name comes up when you reply spontaneously? And I am all for encouraging questioning, so sorry for misunderstanding on my part.

I also realize Bob that going into this moon landing question would derail the purpose of this thread, but just to say that because your 'know it all perfectyl well' doesn't mean that is the same for every one, so if anyojne wanted to go into it with you you should be open to 'humour them' in their inquiry--without being condescending---thats all.

Bob said...

You do have a way of misreading almost everything I say, Muz.

If anyone wants to investigate anything, I'm completely supportive of that. That's why I suggested checking out the sites that deal with it.

I declined to pretend that I'm undecided about it, that's all. There's nothing condescending about that. You can be undecided if you want to.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 819   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

If it says 'Newest' above right of the comment box, click this to update to the most recent comments.