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: http://bit.ly/harameinAIP. Feel free to ask questions in the comments.]

[Edit July 2013: He's had an article ("Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass") published in a science journal. Does that mean it is science? Please see here or here for details. Links updated May 2016.]


1.

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.


2.

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.


3.

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. What he is doing is not science, it is story-telling.

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.


4.

A question. If Nassim's ideas, talks and research are scientific and revolutionary, why is the academic community ignoring it? As far as I can tell, no scientist working in any public university anywhere in the world has responded to any of his research, either in a scientific publication or anywhere online. None of his papers have been published in any scientific journal – certainly not one subject to proper peer review [but see top of article for July 2013 update]. 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 sciencefile.org.


5.

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, and misuses their charisma to build an uncritical following. 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
sciencefile.org.
Little url for these articles: http://bit.ly/haramein
A (small) Facebook group[Back to blog]

948 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 948   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

...Well BOB, it looks like you have certainly got people thinking, which is good.
If they can make the time to respond, they care, and the side of the discussion they take isn't important.
What matters is that every point raised, either by Haramein or yourself, is being considered by many.
Everyone is unique and we will all have different opinions about things, which is healthy. If we all thought the same thing, humans would never learn anything new.
I'm sure everyone here thinks that they are right, but sometimes we do get things wrong. It's our intention to be right which eventually will lead us to the truth.
There are so many mysteries to uncover and I think it's important to listen to what EVERYONE has to say.
Then we can decide for ourselves what we feel is the truth.
In the case of Haramein, we need to take each subject he talks about in turn and treat it as an individual idea...

How can we explain crop circles?

Does the vacuum of space have a structure?

Could Earth have been visited by ETs in ancient times?

How can we explain how ancient civilisations knew so much about stars, which are not visible to the naked eye from Earth?

How can we explain the writings in the bible?

Did Atlantis exist?

.....The list is endless really because he touches on so much.

I love the mystery of it all and trying to learn the truth. No matter how much we know, we will always want to know more so we should be sharing what we know with everyone else and if some people don't like it, that's no surprise really.

I also think that science is something that everyone has inside them. The ability to look, learn and analyse is what we are born with. Children know science in their hearts before they know the definition of the word. Nobody should be denied the right to have an opinion on "science" because they don't have experience. I'm not saying Haramein is right. I'm also not saying any great physicist is right, or wrong.
Don't take anyone's word, even mine, unless you have fully understood and agree.
An open mind is going to learn more than a closed one. Obvious but true :-)

Zoe

Anonymous said...

...Haha, just spent ages going on, then my message didn't come up. Oh well, I'll keep them short in future :-)

I guess I just basically said that it's good that both you and Haramein are getting people thinking...Sides don't matter, just the drive for the truth...We are all born with science in our hearts, even if we have no "experience", we can all observe, analyse, conclude etc....Mystery is great...don't take anyone's word, including mine, unless you understand and agree...

Sounded loads better 1st time though, haha.

Everyone here cares and that's the main thing. Continue to search for the truth. Not just with one subject, but with all.....

Zoe

Bob said...

Good questions Zoe :)

You seem very keen on the idea that actually there isn't a 'right answer' to anything. It's a nice idea, but I don't really think it's one that makes a lot of sense.

We're each entitled to our opinion on science, as you say. But if we have an opinion without bothering to find out, it will probably be wrong. What's the point of 'having an opinion' on the mass of a proton, for example? Unless your opinion agrees with what the mass of the proton actually is, it's just wrong.

Open-mindedness doesn't mean ignoring the facts and giving equal value to the opinion of anyone. That's just wilful ignorance.

If you want to be open-minded, surely that means acknowledging the work done by those who have bothered to find out; those who have used their creativity and ingenuity to investigate what nature is like.

There's nothing open-minded about taking a view contrary to mainstream science unless you truly understand where mainstream science is at.

Might sound counter-intuitive, but think about it...

muzuzuzus said...

"There's nothing open-minded about taking a view contrary to mainstream science unless you truly understand where mainstream science is at.

Might sound counter-intuitive, but think about it... "

Depends what you mean by where its at. I have already said that mainstream science is mostly interlocked with corporate owned politics---you didn't agree, and believed they act separately. I don't and have the right to point this out scientist or not. In fact the scientists that are on the payroll are less likely to want to rock the boat.

Bob said...

If you want to simply ignore the whole of mainstream science because you think they're all interlocked with corporate politics, that's up to you, but it sure as hell isn't open-minded. It's pure prejudice.

Do you know enough scientists well enough to see these compromised motivations you're accusing them all of? I doubt it. Do you have a deep understanding of how science accepts and revises new ideas? I doubt it.

Dismissing an entire body of human knowledge that has been built and tested and refined and investigated over centuries by a massive variety of individuals and organisations from hundreds of countries, without understanding it, because that's your personal preferred view, is about as narrow-minded as it's possible to be.

Bob said...

I guess I'd better clarify that I'm not trying to say everyone should agree with mainstream science.

Science benefits from being questioned in every way possible, and everyone on the planet is free to investigate the logic and the evidence behind any claim.

What we call 'the mainstream' are the theories and concepts that thrive in an environment of constant international interrogation and challenge.

But challenging something is very different from dismissing it because you don't like it.

I'm talking about people who feel they have a right to dismiss the mainstream, from a position of ignorance, or (equivalently) treat it as just a view that's no better than whatever anyone else might come up with. That's definitely a narrow-minded view, n'est-ce pas?

Deb said...

Bob.

Google provided the link to your blog. I recently received an invite to hear Jamie Janover speak in a home here in Portland, OR about "The Unified Field Theory of Nassim Haramein & beyond". The video they provided for review brought up dozens of "red flags".

I'm both very spiritual and a civil-structural engineer. I consider myself open minded to many different view points on God, our Universe, and how energy moves through us. However, after watching several of Haramein's videos and reading some of the material on his site I have no desire to follow this man or his concepts. Yet there are almost 40 people signed up to hear Jamie speak.

Haramein's discussions are circular, there's a lack of substance and content, and the facts appear weak. I wanted to question this and the thought process that derived the ideas. There were a few parts where I was embarrassed for those in the video - the words they chose were misplaced or misused.

It's clear that Nissam and his people believe in what they are saying. And in the bigger picture of our world, different view points are necessary; however, anyone with a good foundation in mathematics and physics would question how he comes to his conclusions - as some simply lack scientific proof.

What's unfortunate is that because people are looking for answers, an individual with some knowledge, confidence and a bit of charisma can create a following. This is done all the time. Not only in spiritual circles but in political and scientific circles. I see Haramein as a wannabe guru as opposed to a scientist. After all, that's were the money is now-a-days.

I've no real point except to say thank you for your blog and being consistent with your words. I need no proof of your knowledge or education for it's evident in the way you present yourself and no "red-flags" come up when I read your posts.

It's new years eve. Have a wonderful 2011.

Anonymous said...

Deb,

Your post literally has zero substance, but it goes far in regards to sucking up to this blog, and Bob in particular.

It would be substantive if instead of just using wrods such as "red flags", "lack of substance and content", "facts appear weak".

Whart are such red flags, and if you want to make a case for something lacking substance and being factually weak, perhaps you might want to be more specific?

Nassim Haramein has recently had a paper published (Dec 2010) entitled the Shwarzchild Proton in the American Institute for Physics, passing a vigorous process of peer review among noteworthy American physicists.

I guess your series of ad-hominem attacks and useless comments are a better judge of Nassim than the American Institute for Pysics, huh?

Anonymous said...

Come on Bob, lets see some substance.

Start debunking and proving this paper to be the fraud you constantly claim Nassim is:

http://www.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/AIP_CP_SProton_Haramein.pdf

http://scitation.aip.org/proceedings/confproceed/1303.jsp

There's no debunking in this whole entire blog, just typical fallicious arguments. Sometimes I wonder how if this blog is the least bit ingenuous.

Bob said...

Hmm, hello Anonymous and a Happy New Year to you too.

First of all, why are you attacking Deb? She was just leaving a friendly comment, not launching a philosophical challenge. There's an entire blog full of substance here, and instead you lay into someone giving their personal thoughts? That's pretty low.

Something common to almost all Haramein apologists is their willingness to use terms without knowing or caring what they mean. Ad hominem is a classic! I wonder how many more times I'll see that term thrown around pretentiously by people who clearly don't know what it means. I can guess where you got it: people used it against you, and now you've taken to throwing it back at people as if it's a brick. It doesn't really work like that.

There were no ad hominems in Deb's post. I'd recommend you find out what it means before you use it again, otherwise you'll just look silly. If you want an example of one, look at your very first sentence.

Regarding the Schwarzschild Proton paper, I've discussed some of the massive flaws in the paper in detail here, and I explained some of the issues around the "peer review" it received at the top of this post, where there's also a note regarding the AIP publication. As you're no doubt fully aware, having read "this whole entire blog" in detail (unless that was also pretentious). But I'm happy to take this opportunity to clarify...

Bob said...

OK, let's be honest here instead of randomly pretending (because it happens to suit someone's view) that the American Institute of Physics have done or said anything that would give Haramein any legitimacy or his theories any validity.

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

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

The reason Haramein's paper is referred to as "peer reviewed" is because it was chosen as best of one of the categories by people at this particular conference. I can say with confidence that they were not physicists – at least not physicists with any experience or familiarity with the nature of protons or black holes or any of the other subjects Haramein misused in his paper. If you think you have evidence to the contrary, give me names and I'll write to them and ask them what the hell they were thinking.

They were participants at a computing systems conference (the topic was "Computing Anticipatory Systems", a novel branch of systems theory and artificial intelligence). The head of the awarding committee is Daniel Dubois, who founded computing anticipatory systems. He has made clear that he wants to see it used in physics (along with many other disciplines) and has done a little work in that direction. But he is not a physicist. Also Haramein's paper doesn't even attempt to employ anything resembling computing anticipatory systems. (These matters were also discussed in this earlier comment.)

I dread to think what criteria were used to select Haramein's paper, but, having been to a few conferences, I imagine his charismatic and lively style was a refreshing change from many of the presentations there. This is regardless of whether or not, as non-physicists, the "peers" had a clue what he was talking about or how ridiculous it was.

Their job was not to put the paper through a rigorous process of refereeing as would be required for acceptance by a scientific journal. Their job was to choose a paper from the bunch in front of them right there and then.

If you still think his appearance in some obscure conference proceedings gives any validation whatsoever to anything Haramein has said, I'd like to hear that argument! It would have to answer one hell of a lot of very serious questions.

(I'd also like to know why – apart from pure prejudice – anyone would choose to accept this AIP appearance as relevant while simultaneously dismissing the hundreds of thousands of articles that actually have passed rigorous peer review as not worth taking seriously because it's "the mainstream". Unless you have evidence that the entire peer review process is corrupt and a massive conspiracy from start to finish, it really doesn't make a great deal of sense. But that's another matter.)

Bob said...

By the way, you can read more about Haramein's publication as it's discussed in various forums, where people look a little deeper and realise what a scam it is. For example abovetopsecret or scepcop or jref. The futurists at kurzweil haven't caught up yet. Give them time.

Bob said...

Deb, thanks for your thoughts. Apologies for my diversion but I'd been meaning to set all that out for some time.

I think you're right – sadly that is where money is to be made nowadays. Not wanting to give anyone any ideas, but it's true there are a lot of misinformed and prejudiced people out there, and many of them feel aggrieved that their opinions are not taken seriously. All you need to do is pander to their views of the world and of themselves, and they'll give you their money and their adulation.

Present a version of reality that is centred on their feelings, that's what they really want. And make it look authoritative.

Thinking people dismiss these people's opinions – but if you turn that on its head, you can tell them they have the alternative view, they are the ones thinking outside the box, so they must be the open-minded ones! All the rest must just be dogma. (Whatever it all is. Doesn't matter.)

And of course they don't see themselves as prejudiced or narrow-minded, they see themselves as thoughtful and caring individuals whose emotions matter. Which of course is true! All humans are thoughtful and caring, and we all matter.

Nobody wants to be told off about their views. Especially if they don't know any better, and especially if they don't understand the alternative and don't like being made to feel stupid. So it's much more attractive for them to stick with others who make them feel like they're part of a new revolution in science or galactic society or whatever, from where they can look down on the rest of us with pity or compassion or contempt (depending on their nature).

It sounds harmless enough until you realise that the whole thing rests on feeding prejudices, fostering contempt for whatever aspects of mainstream society they dislike, and encouraging people not to look outwards but to stay within the bubble of people with similar views. It's nothing new – cults have done this for thousands of years. But the internet provides the perfect medium for these bubbles to grow, and there's something rather vulnerable in the West these days, particularly, it seems, in the States.

So yes, I think millions of people will pay a lot to feel part of something like that, and there are plenty of people weasly enough and either manipulative or deluded enough to take advantage of them. That's why I think it's important that people are prepared to shine a light on them, to winkle them out and show them for what they are.

The forums I mentioned in the previous comment are not perfect by any means, but it's cheering to see them investigating and arriving at sensible conclusions on so many occasions, even if not everyone involved in the discussions are willing to accept what they find.

The truth is out there. :-)

Anonymous said...

Hey Muzuzuzus, thanks for the link about the "moon photos" i had already seen other good info on the moon landing hoax but this is definitely superb evidence.

Bob said...

Now we've got moon landing hoax nutters commenting here too, for our entertainment. Don't underestimate these guys' ability to define their own version of 'open-mindedness' by ignoring 99% of what's out there. They're great. Watch and learn, Harameiners – you ain't got nothing on these guys!

Anonymous said...

...Bob, you have completely twisted everything I meant. Sorry to say that I don't think you are going to get my point.
I believe there is ALWAYS a right answer, it's finding it that's the problem. We don't have all the answers yet.
I am open to anyone's opinion and will respect it even if I disagree with it. I do believe the theories of the greats have true value but I also know, and the greats would agree, that we are still and always will be learning new things.
I am not and never will restrict my opinions from change. That's not to say they need changing, I'm just pointing out the willingness to adjust to new lessons, being from a great scientist or a small child.
We can learn from anyone.
I really don't want to be patronising, but just LISTEN to my words without being defensive and see them how I mean them. I AM scientific, I AM intelligent, as is everyone, and I don't just believe the 1st theory that sounds inspiring. I'll pick it to pieces until there's nothing left.
I wish you well and am grateful for your time in this debate.

Zoe

Bob said...

Hey Zoe.

If I've twisted what you meant then I apologise, that wasn't my intention.

You're saying that there are many things we don't know about the universe, so we should keep an open mind. I agree entirely.

What I'm saying is that, while that is true, there are also a great deal of things we do know about the universe, and we would be fools to claim to be speaking from experience if we ignore them.

A selection of what you said:
Everyone is unique and we will all have different opinions about things, which is healthy. – yes, definitely. If you're wanting to encourage people to be true to their own opinions, I support you.

The side of the discussion they take isn't important. – If you mean that it's good if people are true to themselves, then yes.

It's our intention to be right which eventually will lead us to the truth. - I don't agree with this. Everyone intends to be right. My point was, and is, that many people do it in a deeply prejudiced and narrow-minded way, and that doesn't lead them to the truth, it just leads them to attach to whatever story they like and convince themselves that it's true.

The ability to look, learn and analyse is what we are born with. – Again, I don't really agree. It's there in potential, but it's something we have to think very carefully about. To a large degree, we are creatures of desire, of convenience, of prejudices, of fear, of fixed ideas of ourselves. If we don't work hard to use this ability, it shrivels in us, and we start to build a fortress of our stories to keep the truth at bay. It's a potential ability, if we choose to turn towards it. It's not always easy.

I am not and never will restrict my opinions from change. – Exactly. You know what I'm talking about - it's what you do. :-) Not everyone though.

Nobody should be denied the right to have an opinion on "science" because they don't have experience. – No. But in a way, that's like saying nobody should be denied the right to have an opinion that all trees are smaller than 10cm in height. Of course they're welcome to hold such an opinion. It's just that some opinions are just silly.

What makes that opinion seem silly to us is that we have experience of trees, and we know it's false. But the same is true of Haramein's theories – that is how they appear to people who have experience of the subjects he's speaking of. They're just silly.

If you don't have experience of protons or black holes or anomalous magnetic moments or pyramids or whatever else he's talking about, then the best thing you can do is surely to seek out someone you feel you can trust who does have that experience, and ask them what they make of it, and why.

The key for me is that "we're each entitled to our own opinion, but not to our own facts," as the saying goes. If someone presents their opinion and I disagree, that's fine, I'm entitled to disagree. But if someone attempts to present their opinion as a fact, then that's a different matter. They're either deluded or they're trying to deceive, one or the other (or a combination of the two), and the more people speak out clearly against them the better.

It's interesting stuff to try to think about, so thanks for bringing it up. Let me know if I'm still missing your point...

Anonymous said...

...Hi BOb

I agree, we shouldn't ignore what we DO know.

When I said that the side they take isn't important, I meant they are getting BOTH views and then choosing what to believe, and yes, also being true to themselves.

I think our intention to be right DOES lead us to the truth. Not in all cases, I agree with you. I didn't mean every time :-) We can't always be right, although it would be nice, haha.

I think the ability to look, learn and analyse IS something we are all born with. Although, that's not to say that we can all use our ability to be accurate, always. I completely agree with what you said. I meant that our born abilities give us ALL the right to a view in science and we don't NEED a piece of paper to tell us we are capable.

Opinions in science, true, some opinions will be invalid, like the tree thing, haha. Again, I was referring to the fact that some, not all, may have the intelligence to come up with new theories and not have any "qualifications".

Haramein's theories. Again, true, with no experience, seek advice. I've NEVER said he was right, only that I'm interested in his views. Not all, just some, in particular, the ancient civilisations.

Facts. What appears as fact may not always be so. It is a fact based on how we can measure or compare with what we already know. We are arrogant, as humans, to think there isn't anything in the universe and existence that we could never create an equation for. I hope we can but we just don't know. I agree, we don't want people giving false statements about the universe. I don't want to offend anyone here but isn't that what the bible does? It is riddled with statements that appear ridiculous to science, yet people worldwide are joined in opinion. I could go much more deeply into this but I'm not. The scale of this is much more widespread than Haramein's theories. Are you doing anything to analyse that as a false document, or just accepting it because too many people believe it? I think the bible has elements of truth about history, many of which are related to the "heavens" (space).

You do sometimes miss my point but I think that ultimately, we have a similar opinion, although we express them differently. It's easy to misunderstand when text is all you have to go on, with no tone or body language.

All I want is the truth. Right now, I feel the puzzle has many pieces missing, no matter which angle I take. I'm sure you agree.

Zoe

muzuzuzus said...

OK Check this out. Please watch it with open mind first---you can judge it later Allagash Abductions Pt 1
When you see part 2, see the comment left there which inspired me to share this video with you:

"The point is with our scientists etc, is, they look constantly through their telescopes looking for life in outer space,meanwhile ufo's are buzzing towards them at great speeds undetected. In fact ufo's have been videoed hovering in one place then disappearing and re-appearing in another spot, all on video tape. Stands to reason, if an advanced ET is coming here, then it would use technology that hides them. Simply as that! For me, scientists & others in important professions aren’t that clever!
silversurfers7 4 months ago"

Loek said...

Hi muzuzuzus,

I am sorry, but I can not take this serious. Please read my objections with the same open mindedness as I have watched the video.

1. UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Objects. If it is known that it is an alien spaceship, please do not use the name UFO.
2. If these alien spaceships can avoid being viewed by scientists, how can they be viewed by people who are far less well equiped?
3. If the previous point is correct, then they must have a reason not to be viewed by scientists. That would explain why scientists will not see them. So why is there the conclusion that scientists are not smart? They are just outsmarted by these aliens, which allow non professionals to see them. If they are so technically advanced, why to blame the scientists?
4. If scientists can not see these UFO's as UFO's successfully avoid that, what should scientists conclude? I think that they are obliged to say that UFO's do not exist. I would say that is realistic, isn't it?
5. Why are these scientists not clever if they do not see UFO's? Is it that they are looking for? Let's assume that a scientist is working on quasars. Will you judge him on his work on quasars or on not seeing UFO's? Or let's say you are going to judge a quarterback. Will you judge him on his skills in football or American football?

It is not that I do not believe these men to have their experience. Who am I to deny that? But I do know that the line of reasoning of silversurfer7 does not make sense to me.

With kind regards,

Loek

muzuzuzus said...

I think the gist of what she or he is meaning to say is that, amongst Ufologists it is generally agreed that the 'scientific community' will NOT stdy the UFo phenomena, hence what you usuall hear on the manstream media is about SETI, and looking for organic life on planets--NOT looking for UFOs and ETs that have already been reported to be here. So s/he's making that point that while they are busy busy lookin through their telescopes that the actual UFOS are makin fools of them. Of the ones that will not take this seriously.
However this is not to mean SLL scientists don't. I just Googled 'scientists who have seen UFOs' and found
UFO 'filmed for 40 minutes' by Chinese scientists during solar eclipse Now bear in mind that's in China!

In another link The UFO Hunters - Scientists at National Institute for Discovery Science study anomalous phenomena it is said: "Worthless research ridiculed:

"The vast majority of scientists dismiss this type of research as being absolutely worthless," he says. "The scientific community generally tends to reject anything without evidence, obvious evidence."

Kelleher himself has seen strange floating lights that he could not explain, and he says it's scientific curiosity that drives him. He knows there must be some explanation, and he thinks it's a travesty that mainstream scientists are not doing more to solve the mystery.

"There's a real aura of ridicule and trivialization surrounding the UFO field which makes scientists run a mile the other way," Kelleher admits. "To many scientists, studying UFOs is really a career killer, and that hasn't changed in 50 years." "

muzuzuzus said...

Also Bob, as a scientist Bob what do you make out of what scientists are saying in this video? I know that nassim has mentioned about ZPE himself--though have forgotten what context in (I would have to checkout the transcript from his LONG talk :))
Anyway, thoughts? Cold Fusion - Some "Bullet Points"

Anonymous said...

muzuzuzus...have you seen The Disclosure Project? Look it up on youtube. It's a presentation given by professionals in the air force etc who are standing up (with evidence, be it documents or data/audio recordings etc) to make statements about UFOs. It appears to be quite genuine. I think you'll like it.
BOB...you will not like it, just a hunch :-))))) Although I could be surprised yet.

Zoe

Bob said...

Hi Zoe... yes, I think we're in agreement, mostly, though we use different language. It's nice when that happens. It sometimes needs a little work to get there, but it's rewarding.

One thing to pick up on, though...

"We are arrogant, as humans, to think there isn't anything in the universe and existence that we could never create an equation for." - Perhaps some people do this. If they do, then they are indeed arrogant. But I certainly don't think that, and I don't know any scientists who think it either.

The most important aspect of science, for me, is the honesty. How can anyone search for truth without being completely honest? If there are things we don't know how to even start creating equations for (consciousness is the obvious example), then it's very important that we say so. It would be arrogant to presume that it's possible.

I've seen some scientists speculate, and give opinions about what should be possible in the distant future, or about whether consciousness should be reducible to the quantum dynamics of the matter in the brain. To be fair, they usually only give these silly speculations when pressurised by journalists or tv presenters. The media constantly want to present straight answers to very complex issues, and as a result, the picture many people receive of science is distorted.

As you say, there are many pieces missing. It's human nature to want the gaps filled in, which is why people like Haramein become popular. He fills them in alright. But if someone can't demonstrate a reasonable degree of honesty, it's far better to keep the gaps.

If there are gaps and we want the truth, the only honest place to start is to accept the gaps for what they are. Every scientist that I have any respect for definitely does this.

Re "The Disclosure Project", I couldn't care less whether I 'like' a set of ideas, much less whether you or anyone else do! I'm not self-centred enough to expect the universe to conform to my preferences. If you want to get underneath a subject, study it properly instead of watching populist trash. Up to you though. :-)

Bob said...

Re Muzuzuzuzuzu, I'll pass on the UFOs and cold fusion - it's a bit off-topic. One technical thing though - "The scientific community generally tends to reject anything without evidence, obvious evidence."

That's not really true. If there is no evidence to reject something, then it shouldn't be rejected. But extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence to be accepted. And alien spaceships are extraordinary claims.

Not being accepted is not the same as being rejected. It's easy to get these confused, but they're very different. If a scientist rejected something without evidence, they'd be a pretty bad scientist.

If some unconvincing evidence was given in support of an extraordinary claim, it would make perfect scientific sense to dismiss the evidence as insufficient. But again, dismissing the evidence as insufficient is not the same as rejecting a claim. Again, it's easy to get these confused, but they're very different.

It's true that many scientists don't want to be associated with UFOs, which is unfortunate. But it doesn't really matter too much, because there are also many that do. If the extraordinary evidence is out there, there are plenty of scientists ready and willing to take it on.

muzuzuzus said...

Well Bob, in a way you are rejecting the investigation. You claim it is 'off topic', but if you were REALLY interested you would simply open another topic it could be investigated in, but you don't seem to want to. So we have the situation here where you--representing science--seem quite disonterested in this topic which challenges 'official science'--like Nassim is doing. You seem quite happy though to have more than several topics devoted to bringing down the 'easy target'(?) of Nassim Harrimien, but in doing so back up established science in the process. I admit you do say that you appreciate scientists who will not choose to be closed minded, however when someone wants you to look at science which other scientists are saying is being suppressed by 'official science' you choose yourself to "pass".

"But extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence to be accepted. And alien spaceships are extraordinary claims."

I would rather say, extraordinary claims need extraordinary investigation. See the distinction? ;)

Bob said...

I'm not especially interested, no. How is that the same as rejecting it? That's seriously nutty logic.

Also, surely you notice that the internet is full of extraordinary claims. So what? Anyone can make an extraordinary claim. I could make a video right now about how the tree outside my house burst into flames spontaneously in the rain. It doesn't mean anyone has to suddenly jump into action! If any of these claimants produce extraordinary evidence instead of mere claims, they'll get their extraordinary investigation.

Anyway, if you like to sit there feeling you have the right to re-invent what scientists' priorities should be, don't let me stop your fun...

Anonymous said...

So you are one of that guys that desacredit everything, pretty, you should continue with you life, peace and love.

Bob said...

Hardly.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob :-))

I agree with what you said in your reply to me but...

Your comment about the Disclosure project was a bit harsh. I was just suggesting an interesting UFO related case made by many upstanding people.
I was right in thinking that you wouldn't like it then? :-) Ha ha.

I think you should maybe try to chill out a bit and not be so quick to attack other people's interests and ideas. There are so many beliefs of others that I, myself, don't share but still respect and try to understand where they might be coming from.

Have you even seen the UFO disclosure priject video?
Do you have any evidence to suggest that all of the witnesses are making their stories up?

There's nothing wrong with a healthy debate. It's actually fun to see what everyone thinks and compare ideas. No need to generate bad feeling. This reaction only closes us off from other people.

Newton is known for his genius in physics but he also spent a huge amount of time dabbling in stuff most people would think was mental, like decoding the bible mathematically and attempting to make the mythical philosopher's stone. Many people who made breakthroughs had to work in secret for fear of public rejection, Darwin being another. These are the people we look up to and we owe it to their bravery in new ideas.

UFOs are something that are being reported world wide. Maybe this is something we should be taking more seriously? Just a thought.

Happy thinking,

Zoe

Bob said...

Hi Zoe. Yes, I'm aware that some of the greats who have presented brilliant and verifiable and lasting revelations into nature have also sometimes presented nonsense. The same person can do many things in a lifetime.

Science isn't about investigating people to see which ones are always right and which ones are always wrong. That would be foolish. It's about investigating ideas to see which ones stand up to scrutiny.

However when someone (like Haramein and like Greer) can be seen in many situations talking nonsense and jumping to crowd-pleasing conclusions, and if I've never seen a single example of them speaking insightfully or demonstrating any depth of understanding of the scientific concepts that they're using, then I think it's fair to say that I see no reason to trust anything speculative that they introduce.

I'm not making any accusations about any of the people on the disclosure project.

When claims are made, it's not up to the viewer to disprove them. If I claim to be able to fly, and tell you it's your job to prove that I can't, that's just silly. Making claims is very easy and extremely common. Believing one's own claims is also very common. I think it's reasonable to doubt them. And doubt is vastly different from rejection.

I do, however, consider any forum that presents claims as if they're facts, and tries to assert that we should believe them, to be trash. Perhaps that's a little harsh, but I think it panders to people's desire for over-simplification. That's just a personal opinion.

I go to great lengths to be open-minded, but I also go to great lengths to establish grounds for trusting a source before I take on board their version of reality. If grounds for trust is not there, the open-minded version of events is "there are some people making claims", and that's it.

The same applies to mainstream science, of course. No scientist appreciates being presented with a claim as if it's a fact to be believed instead of a claim. I'm not making a counter-claim (e.g. that they're wrong), I'm rejecting the assertion that these claims constitute acceptable evidence for anything.

If I'm presented with people making claims, I'd rather treat them honestly as people making claims and not be told what to believe. I appreciate that many people like to be told what to believe, but it's not my thing.

Don't know if any of that makes sense to you. I feel like I'm going round in circles a little.

My point is that sometimes there is significant evidence that someone is a compulsive conclusion-jumper, and that their presentations and projects are overwhelmingly misleading. For me, that applies to Greer as much as it does to Haramein. Having seen what I've seen, I'm unlikely to take anything seriously that they present unless there's some VERY good reason to trust it. To me that seems pretty sensible.

Anonymous said...

You have an ego the size of the moon, and an imagination the size of a proton. The evidence for UFOs over the past 60 years is near unparalelled.

In Septemeber, over 20 ex-military officers disclosed at the National Press Club in DC that UFOs deactivated nuclear missile silos.

Pull your head out of your ass bob.

Did you not see it? It was on CNN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtmpaM0PqyI

Bob said...

An ego the size of the moon, wow. Cool.

Forgive me, but I'm a little tired of continually having to explain that doubting claims is not the same as telling people they're wrong.

As I said, given that internet is absolutely teeming with claims, and it's absolutely teeming with people attempting to present claims as if they are facts that have to be believed.

Claims don't have to be believed. You can believe them if you wish.

Anonymous said...

Credible testimony from multiple officers that witnessed this one incident is called documentary evidence. These are career military officers that were responsible for nuclear weapons. It`s not a claim, it`s evidence.

I agree that the internet is teaming with claims, as you say, but I know when to recognize credible witness testimony versus a claim based on zero evidence.

By discarding this specific piece of evidence, along with the tens of thousands of other documented cases, you show your inability to accept a reality that is beyong your paradigm to even comprehend.

If you were willing to honestly look at th evidence, like thousands of other credible scientists and credible eye witnesses, you would not make the claims against such reality as you have in your previous posts.

And yeah, an ego the size of the moon, pretty cool eh!

Bob said...

So what does that have to do with Haramein claiming that protons have a mass of 885 million tons and bind together stronger than any measurable force in the universe, and people claiming it to be the new physics?

Anonymous said...

It has nothing to do with the mass of a proton as claimed by Nassim Haramein, rather it is in response to your particular comments about Steven Greer. Greer bases his assertions on disclosures by hundreds of credible witnesses, including pilots (both civilian and military), military officers, intelligence officers, politicians (Jimmy Carter and Feif Simongton, to name a couple), as well as the thousands of declassified documents that have recently come out of Canada, the United Kingdon, Argentina, Mexico and Ecuador (just to name a few).

In reference to Haramein and his claim in regards to the mass of protons, such "claims", as you call them, have been peer reviewed and published in the American Journal of Physics, which is a highly respected physics journal with a rigorous peer review process. Sorry there Bob, but I think I will trust the American Journal of Physics over someone that doesn`t have a creative bone in their body and probably spends their days teaching physics to high school students in an educational system desgined to kill creative thinking and imagination.

You sit back and repeat established models of physics which are admitted (by the greatest of physicists) to be absolutely lacking.

Again, Nassim Haramien has had a paper published in a highly respected physics journal! What the hell have you done Bob? What are your big accomplishments that you have some sort of authority on him. You`re a peon, and clearly have nothing better to do with your time then to spend it harping on people that actually have the creativity and imagination to add something new to the evolution of physics.

Have a good one there Bob.

Bob said...

Thanks for you encouraging words and for providing another fantasy version of me to add to my collection.

And for your fantasy version of Haramein. The one I'm talking about has never been published in any respected journal of physics, and his work has never been favourably peer reviewed by physicists.

He was given an award for best in a small category at a small conference by a committee who were unfamiliar with the subject of protons or black holes, and the conference proceedings were published using AIP's service that edits and publishes, without reviewing, whatever it is given by the conference. Perhaps that's what you meant.

But don't you worry about finding the truth, my friend, you just carry on attacking the caricature of me that you've made up, it's far more entertaining. :)

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob

I kind of drifted off a bit whilst reading your message because it wasn't necessary to say all that. I was just pointing out that we should be respectful of other people's beliefs and ideas.

I think that it is quite logically possible that alien life which is far more advanced and evolved than us could have found a way to travel the vastness of space. If they did come to Earth, they would probably want to observe for a while, as would we if we discovered life elsewhere.

Why would so many people make these stories up? Some of them have a lot to lose by making these statements. If the government did have knowledge about this, they would probably keep it secret to avoid mass panic.

Think about the size of the universe. All it takes is for one form of life to crack long distance time travel, then follow the signals we've been leaking out into space.

Sorry to divert from the subject of Haramein but it's all linked anyway.

Let's just keep an open mind about it all and not be too quick to close the door on anyone's thoughts.

Kind Regards,

Zoe

muzuzuzus said...

Hey Bob, you'll love this guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZm3QoPOyAU

Anonymous said...

you sure did spend a lot of time trying to debunk Nassims work. Just think of what you could do if you were working on something for the world.

muzuzuzus said...

This is good article
Don’t bother the media with science

And I dig this comment "Just keep repeating the research mantra . . . “Don’t scare away research money and keep your funders happy.” In the US most scientific research funding comes directly or indirectly from Uncle Sam’s military/industrial/complex and sometimes from multi-national corporations, as well.

Any research scientist who gives these gorillas the faintest impression he or she wears a tin foil hat at home to block alien radio waves will be dismissed as an irresponsible flake and cut off by these cash cows.

Really, scientists aren’t blind or stupid about UFOs, they’re just engaged in judicious self-preservation.

by PurrlGurrl"

Bob said...

I'm not interested in your continual dissemination of prejudice against scientists or your fantasies about what they're "really" like.

As I've said, and as I'd say to anyone displaying bigotry towards any group of people, you'd understand more if you'd get to know some scientists and find out what makes them tick instead of just spreading clichés about them.

I'd like to request that we keep the discussion relevant to the topic of Haramein's physics.

Anonymous said...

Unlike Haramein, I have in fact published in peer reviewed journals... So before anybody tries to levy any claims against me on those grounds perhaps you should take notice. And, for the record, Haramein is indeed full of shit.

He displays nothing but misunderstandings of some very basic concepts in physics. He openly admits he has no formal education, and is therefore unqualified to speak to the state of modern physics. If he were capable of even the most basic of reasoning, he might be taken a little more seriously. As it is, he is clearly and obviously a crackpot, to anyone who has any real understanding of how Nature operates.

Loek said...

Hi Anonymous,

Thank you, I had a big laugh while reading your post. Part of the humorous feeling is caused by the shock that you probably think that you are talking seriously. You throw the glove when you talk about levying any claims. Let Bob be the referee.

Please remember that AIP is a peer reviewed journal. Haramain can make the claim that he has appeared in a peer reviewed journal. But he can not claim that his journal has been reviewed by relevant peers. That however does not differ from your statement.

What do you mean by 'I have in fact published '? Does it mean you have or you could have? And what kind of journals? Biology, French, History of Art? And were your articles peer reviewed or did they have the same status as Harameins? One can not tell this from your statements.

Aside from the fact that your statements are very vague and could be misleading as well, it is a fallacy based on authority to say that you have valid arguments because you have published in these journals.

I did not know that a lack of formal education is an argument against the freedom of speech. That is a fallacy based on authority again. It does not imply that someone is not capable of proper reasoning. Nor does the opposite, as you show us. What makes him different is that he claims that QED is bull shit. Like you are saying about him. Furthermore do you say that he is a crackpot. I see these remarks as an insult. Is that how people who claim to be serious scientists talk to each other? Is that a scientific argument, which might help you to publish in peer reviewed journals? Does that imply that Haramein is too well behaving? Is that his lack in education?

Please be more friendly, more to the point, reason well and show respect to the ones you disagree with,


Loek

Bob said...

Hey guys. Thanks for your comments. Just wanted to drop in a few things...

1. Haramein has not been published in a peer reviewed journal. Please see this note for details.

2. While Loek might find crackpot to be an insult, I'm not sure that many people would... and there isn't much in the Wikipedia entry that doesn't objectively apply to Haramein.

3. I do, however, agree with Loek in that arguments from authority don't carry as much weight as reasoned arguments; and arguments from assertion of one's own authority even less! But that needn't prevent anyone from saying what they think - this is only a comment stream after all. Let's not get into who's done what. It's not relevant.

4. Lack of formal qualifications does not preclude anyone from having anything important to say at all. I'm glad that was picked up on.

5. Describing one's opinions as "clear and obvious" is virtually guaranteed to wind people up. (Also, the fact that it's a logical contradiction as part of an argument gives people a very good cause to dismiss what you're saying.)

That is all. Do carry on :-)

Shylo said...

The problem with certain "scientists" is that they have no heart... Meaning no feeling, and thus retarded intuition and sense. Some things require no belief or proof and are simply known.

Can you proove me wrong? ;)

You understand such a small portion of this infinite universe, and your arrogance will prevent you from ever comprehending it objectively.... Subjective science, will never manifest a greater consciousness in you until you open up your mind to the possibility that: You could be more wrong than the man you accuse of being wrong...

Text books are constantly needing rewrites for a reason, and university graduates are in need of a refresher by the time they graduate due to the rapid influx of new "facts" accumulated.

Return to school and still miss the work of thousands of scientists making new discoveries every moment... Wake up Bob, we live in a variable world and you will NEVER lock it down...but can only explain what you find in the moment... Because it is always expanding itself... Unless you have proven that our Universe is not intelligent?

With due respect, and some Love :)
Shylo
Humble being in the infinite cosmos

Loek said...

Dear Shylo,

Nassim Haramein states that QED is incorrect and his theories are correct. Bob is presenting consequences of the ideas of Nassim Haramein using information which is acknowledged by both parties. Using this information he comes to the conclusion that the theory of Nassim Haramein is incorrect.
He does not state that QED is correct out of this refutation of Nassim Harameins theory. He does state that scientists should be willing to accept counter proofs. That willing to accept this is what makes science science.

What you said in your first sentence is an ad hominem. You stipulate something about the person (the scientist) and draw conclusions about the profession (science). Science however has an inbuilt metatheory, which states that a lot of its theories will be proven to be wrong. Progress in science is not made by professional careers of individuals. That can actually prevent science from progressing. The relationship between science and scientists is a very complex one, whereby science can never be reduced to the work of all scientists at a current time in history. The mere fact that old theories have abandoned in favour of others is exactly the essence of science. I consider science therefor as a highly spiritual endeavour, where a whole community has to let go their original beliefs in favour of new ones. If you see what has changed in society since the rise of science, that is unbelievable. Ultimately, science is the shared effort of a whole society to perceive reality as it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

Before the refutation by Bob Nassim Haramein could have been part in my opinion of the scientific community. After the refutation by Bob the way he reacted proved to me that he is more inclined to his own ideas then to the shared goal of progress in knowledge. How complicated the relationship between science and scientists proves to be, is that this exact same situation has occured in scientifical debates quite often. In sofar acts Nassim Haramein still as a true scientist. The difference in my opinion is that Nassim Haramein still spreads his ideas around, while Bob has proven – again in my opinion – using common physics that the ideas of Nassim Haramein are not valid. The word common has here two meanings: general and shared by Bob and Nassim Haramein. The latter makes him in my eyes someone who is merely selling ideas.

The idea that we can only understand the Universe when it is not intelligent seems a contradiction in terms to me. Let me revert your idea into a question: will a stupid universe produce beings, which are intelligent enough to comprehend it? If the universe was not intelligent we could understand it, is it? Why can't we, being part of an intelligent universe, understand the base of our existence? Will we ever be able to see the whole? Is that important? We are here, right now, and we are doing our best. With all ups and downs, with all history of frauds, with all politics. Science is performed in a human world done by human beings in ever changing times. But all in all, slow by slow, it progresses. Is it progress in the 'good' direction? I do not think there is an objective good, but there is an objective wrong. Something is wrong, when you say something, which is in contradiction with your own words. That is the only thing which for sure directs the paths the scientific community can take: as far as we know, we do not go wrong. Quite humble I would say, do you agree?

No, I can not prove you are wrong, but that was not possible from the onset. For you the question remains: can you sincerely say the same after reading this? That is the scientific and spiritual challenge. Everyone answers that question in his/her own manner. No good nor wrong, utterly ones own.

Ubuntu,


Loek

Bob said...

Shylo, your comment about feeling, intuition and heart is just the kind of bigotry that I really don't want to see here.

People have used this kind of dehumanising language throughout history, against whoever they happen to dislike, against whoever it is convenient for them to think of as inhuman.

Was it ever acceptable for anyone to dehumanise black people, based on 'intuition'? Is it acceptable for anyone to dehumanise old people? Will it ever be acceptable for anyone to dehumanise non-muslims? When has this ever been a good thing? If your idea of love, respect or humility involves this kind of prejudice, then you can count me out.

Here's something to consider for the rest of your life, if you wish. You can go out and meet the people you don't understand and get to know them, what moves them, what inspires them and what matters to them. Or you can keep your distance from them, hold onto your misunderstandings about what they stand for, spout clichés and generalisations about them on the internet and maintain your inability to see them as human beings.

I hope you'll choose the first.

Bob said...

Loek, you've made some excellent points there, thank you.

Regarding Haramein's response to criticism: "the way he reacted proved to me that he is more inclined to his own ideas then to the shared goal of progress in knowledge." I think this is perhaps the most important point about this whole thing.

I have made several attempts to engage in public discussion with him on his Resonance Project website, and also on the project's Facebook page, and he responded by blocking me from both. I've never blocked anyone from discussing on here, and I will always welcome debate from anyone from the Resonance Project. Their only response to the criticisms I've made has been to issue statements, presented as being beyond criticism, with no scope for further discussion. Recently his team has called on their supporters to try to get its websites higher than mine on Google.

When Haramein has been asked reasonable scientific questions on the Facebook page (eg. here, he can be seen attacking the questioners, constantly attempting to belittle them with derogatory remarks, expressing irritation with them, and most importantly of all he never actually answers any of their questions. It's all obfuscation and self-importance, and no relevant content.

It doesn't look much like the inspiring or courageous new world they're wanting to sell.


Also, Loek, you said "I consider science therefore as a highly spiritual endeavour" ... "Ultimately, science is the shared effort of a whole society to perceive reality as it is. Nothing more, nothing less."

I couldn't agree more.

At the heart of science is the goal of being willing and able to continually surrender our preconceptions, pre-judgements, intuitions and preferences, in the attempt to perceive reality as it is. It takes self-awareness and dedication and courage.

It doesn't mean that all scientists are pure at heart, of course, any more than any other people following their vocation. And it doesn't mean that everyone should want to do science. But the pursuit of science is certainly one of the most noble ideals of mankind. I have the utmost respect for those who do it honourably and well.

muzuzuzus said...

Bob, I am curious to see the evidence/link that Nassim blocked you? I am not in any way saying your lying about it, but am very curious to read any exchange you had with him (public?) whereupon he just blocked you.

Did he warn you or just do it out of the blue? If you cant link us to it --which I hope you can--can you remember the fateful challenge.

Shylo said...

Classic!

I mention Love, Feeling, Heart and Intuition and you recoil with words like "Bigotry" "Dehumanising".. my goodness... it feels as though you are assuming you know me now? :)

Science and Spirituality are certainly converging on one another... that's all I was getting at I guess.

My reference to the Heart was not an airy fairy assumption based on religion or spirituality. Are you familiar with the studies being done on the Human Heart, that show it has neurons much like our brain and is now being considered to be a heart-brain? There is even a new word to cover this field: "neurocardiology"... We are moving into an era where we think not only with our brains in a logical way, but with our hearts in a feeling way.

For the record, I did not say I felt you were wrong or that Nassim is correct or vice versa, just that if there is no possibility in your mind that you could be wrong then you are too arrogant to see any greater truths outside of your bubble...

We are a little testy and defensive here! I apologize if my post came off as attacking, as it was not my intention. I just become tired of all the "know it all" attitudes using only one frame of reference for comprehension of such an infinitely large and infinitely small universe.

I was postulating that the universe is in fact INTELLIGENT... much more so that us puny humans, (tongue in cheek comment with a grin!)and that it is expanding itself, changing and evolving much faster then we can keep up with.

It is my life's purpose to connect with others through the heart, and I can see that your heart is seeking truth just like everyone else... making it part of your purpose to debunk the truths of others is a waste of your precious time and intellect... which is purely my opinion and please do not let it offend you by taking it personally. The world needs you forging ahead, not being stuck in the past of someone elses stories.

This smells to me of a new kid on the block not being well liked by his peers so he is ridiculed and bullied. Whether or not his science and physics is sound, he is sharing his ideas and his opinion... which can only help others to share their ideas and grow human consciousness.

Remember when the world was absolutely factually flat? :) Remember how persecuted the scientist who was brave enough to go against them all and say "NO, the world is round"? There are many today making leaps and bounds past what is "believed" to be true or that is even true in experiments, which change as well ... science, as it functions, is far too slow to keep up.

That is purely my opinion, such as the opinion of Nassim and others like him, cannot be called "wrong", as it is a perspective and a point of view that can only be seen through the eyes of the beholder. This is especially true when we move into more esoteric understandings of the universe in conjunction with our science.

I am willing to be wrong, even on my opinion, because my opinion does and will change... change is the only constant and the only thing I know to be true 100% is that I am conscious.

Since I do not suffer psychosis, I have no need to be right... and often surrender to the mystery of it all in awe and wonder of the magnificence of the experience. Not everything existing can be seen, and empirically tested! Some things are felt and known...or... not. ;)

With love and respect for new horizons of understanding using the Heart and the Mind...
I leave you to your work with blessings,
Shylo

Bob said...

I think I'll ignore Shylo. Maybe someone intelligent and reasonable will alert me if he says anything interesting.

Bob said...

Muzu, I can't link to the originals, because they were deleted. But I'll do my best.

Haramein posted on the RPF website his response to my first two blog posts (Fraud & Sage and Schwarzschild Proton), and he posted a comment on my blog here. You can see my initial response beneath. I also posted a very similar initial response on the RPF site itself which you can see here, and on the RPF Facebook page here.

On both the RPF site and the Facebook group, the next comment begins "From the nature of your response, Bobathon, it is clear to us that you are not interested in generative, positive and constructive discussions," which I entirely disagree with.

I think it's undeniable that I'm very open to discussion - I've engaged heartily and as reasonably as I can on here, and would do in any forum if given the opportunity.

If by "generative, positive and constructive" they mean showing deference and refraining from pointing out everything that's wrong with his work, then I suppose they're right. I'm not interested in that. But that's not at all what I understand by those words. I'm interested in what Loek was talking about: a shared effort to transcend limiting views and get closer to reality. The ability to allow disagreement is a fundamental part of this.

I attempted to respond on the RPF site, but it did not pass moderation. Neither have any subsequent attempts. (I kept a copy of the first comment I made that didn't pass moderation - it's nothing more than asking some basic questions of his theory that reveal a further error in his equations. Nothing unpleasant. I'll repost it here if you're interested.)

They also told me "In our comment to your blog, we asked you to put his reply as a link in the main body of your posts and you have chosen not to do so." They did ask this, both on my blog and on the Facebook group. You'll see that of course I have responded, in detail, with notices on those posts and an entire post devoted to Haramein's response, together with links to it. (Out of interest, do you ever see links to criticisms or constructive debates on Haramein's site?)

But I didn't do as they ordered within 7 days!! So as you can see, I was blocked from commenting further on the Facebook group, and all my previous posts were deleted, along with (at a later date) all the posts of several others who were commenting in support of what I was saying.

It's unfortunate that these are no longer visible. Again, I may have been uncompromising in challenging his arguments, but I was not unpleasant.

You'll notice that virtually all the comments on his site are deferential and obsequious, and if you follow any others you end up with someone being threatened and/or blocked. There is simply no room for criticism or debate on any of his forums.

Bob said...

Another post on there that is revealing is this one, entitled "shutting up the skeptics". I entered that discussion along with another contributor (who I didn't know). We were both making the point that it's better to listen to and debate with skeptics, not silence them. The guy who initiated the debate used every dirty trick in the book, and was entirely unreasonable... and now all that remains of the discussion is him throwing abuse at nobody.

I wish I had a copy of that debate before being deleted from the site, as it would show how reasonable we were trying to be in debating with him. Was he removed from the site for his abuse and extreme language? Of course not. We were.

This shows us something crucial about Haramein's principles. It's nothing to do with being reasonable or pleasant or respectful to each other. It's about conformity, it's about deference, it's about whether you're with him or against him. Haramein is not a man seeking the truth, he's a rhetorician seeking to sell his own branded version of truth.

I hope that answers your question!

I'm not expecting any of this to stop people defending him any more than anything else I've said. I've learnt never to underestimate what some people are prepared to ignore when they decide to like the story that someone is telling them. But there we are.

Anonymous said...

Loek,

I explicitly stated that I have published in peer reviewed journals (meaning that my work was critiqued by others that are competent enough to judge it) - although I did not state which field - condensed matter physics.

Journals such as: Physical Review Letters, Physical Review B, Phys. Rev. B. Rapid Communications, and the Journal of Applied Physics.

My point wasn't that those who lack formal education have nothing to contribute to science, but that they are NOT in a position to assert that "new ideas are kept out" - because they have no such direct experience. In other words, they are not in a position to criticize an establishment they have only read about in books.

His lack of reasoning is evident in his work, as well as his rebuttals to me on facebook. This has nothing to do with his education, it is merely a flaw in his intellectual abilities.

I'm sorry, but I outright reject the notion that Nassim is worthy of any kind of respect. All ideas are not equal - it does not make me close minded to filter out those that are obviously wrong and I don't see why someone who deliberately exploits others is deserving of my respect, simply because he's standing up to the "big bad scientific establishment"

Bob said...

"They are not in a position to criticize an establishment they have only read about in books." Ah, now I see what you meant. Definitely agree. Not only does he criticise the state of modern physics from a position of ignorance, but he gives the go-ahead for all his followers to do it too. And they willingly follow the piper.

When the whole of mainstream science persists in either ignoring or ridiculing his work, his only way of surviving is by convincing as many people as possible to hold strong enough prejudices that they'll never listen to any scientific opinion on his work. What's so sad is how easy this has been.

If I were an economist, I'd say this is where the smart money is for the 21st Century. Pandering to and stoking the prejudices of the indignant and gullible.

muzuzuzus said...

"My point wasn't that those who lack formal education have nothing to contribute to science, but that they are NOT in a position to assert that "new ideas are kept out" - because they have no such direct experience. In other words, they are not in a position to criticize an establishment they have only read about in books."

But isn't asserting that there's a possibility new ideas ARE being kept out of ESTABLISHED science contributing to science? HOW do you KNOW that is totally un-true that ideas are being kept out of science?

Loek said...

Hi Nescio,

Thanks for your reply. The way you say it now would not startle me. I read someone who was quite emotional and far from rational albeit he claimed to have those capacities.

I can directly agree your first sentence starting with 'My point'. Moreover, it has been proven in the past that theories once very powerful were abandoned later. Your second sentence is quite a generalization upon the first concrete sentence and therefor I tend to disagree with that. But I agree that criticizing should start with asking questions.

Please notice that I am not someone who is looking down upon science. The fact that he disrespected QED was the trigger that made me doubt what he was saying. Whatever one might think of QED, in my opinion it deserves a lot of respect. When I wrote about showing respect it had nothing to do with Nassim Haramein, but with yourself. That remark was inspired by reading a defensive/offensive attitude. But I should not have said it.

Crackpot is not an insult indeed, that was definitely my error.

With kind regards,

Loek

Bob said...

Muzu, Haramein is someone who asserts something to be true that he does not know. He makes a living by continually doing this. This is grossly irresponsible, and makes him a deeply untrustworthy individual. Demonstrating many separate instances of this is sufficient to reveal someone to be a fake.

This is not the same as claiming to know the opposite. Nobody is claiming that. Can you see the massive difference?

Anyway, let's be sensible here. Let's say you did genuinely want to learn about how the scientific establishment responds to great ideas (rather than grubbing around to find what you already want to find). Do you think you'd get an insightful answer by asking the crackpot who thinks he's the new Einstein but can't get his demonstrably false fantasy theories published?

Andrew said...

it's a sham.

who are the victims? the people that gather to hear this guy speak? no way, they get exactly what they need: a shamanistic new age philosophy which is substantiated by the authority of science, while it paradoxically renounces said authority.

I think the real victims are those people who have actual challenging contributions to science and philosophy and fall on tired ears (scientists who have listened to Haramein for too long and are off crackpots altogether).

That said, so what? I suppose it only encourages scientists and philosophers with challenging views to learn to communicate all the better, if they are not to be martyrs.

One thing that has come up again and again above: there is not ONE status quo science, not ONE institution of science. Science and philosophy (I mention philosophy because we are mixing our physics and our metaphysics in Haramein's work) are full of competing points of view. Lots of US disagree on lots of different points, the only thing that makes an 'us' at all is the common desire to understand and a hefty investment in some shared vocabulary and history to allow for communication at all. Haramein is only on the 'outside' because that's exactly where he wants to be. The handsome rebel shaman genius we will all come to worship in centuries forthcoming.

muzuzuzus said...

ERRRR I am not planning on worshipping anyone mate, and I recommend you don't too.

Bob said...

There are lots of ideas out there, yes. It's fascinating. Some are genuinely insightful, some are genuinely speculative, and some are shams. The task of sorting them out - and being honest when you don't know - is one of the joys of science.

I disagree with your generalisation of his audiences though. Some will be quite happy to lap up whatever Haramein says, but some are genuinely seeking the truth and genuinely believe him to be a scientist.

They have their own various reasons for feeling mistrustful of the protests against him, and they put their trust in him. If they realised what a sham he is and how much he abuses their trust, they'd drop him like a ton of bricks. With luck, some of them will let him know how disillusioned they are.

Also you say "Haramein is only on the 'outside' because that's exactly where he wants to be." - Not so. The guy has spent the last decade marketing his brand to academia. He talks frequently about the importance of getting it into peer reviewed journals, about getting mainstream science on side, he boasts about having scientists in the audience at his talks, he goes out of his way to make his sham research look as much like academic research as possible. He might not want to be one of the academic in-crowd, but he's desperate for their attention.

I'd question your use of the word 'genius' too, unless you're talking archetypically. For some people wanting a magic man to look up to, he seems to fit the bill. But as for "embodying exceptional intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of unprecedented insight" ... er, nope.

You're right about the effect on academics. After they've given their ear generously to people like Haramein a few times, it's hard to blame them for being reluctant to listen to eccentrics. But amazing breakthroughs from outside do make their way in. Ramanujan was a great example.

They don't need their ideas to be immediately recognisable by everyone - just one unfatigued connection is all it takes. Anyone with persistence can get themselves heard. There are so many academics hungry for truth, devoted to truth, that their human flaws and fallibilities can't hold back the tide.

Truth will find a way of seeping in, regardless of how many psychological and institutional barriers they put up to protect themselves.

Anonymous said...

Bob... you can be so rude. Why did you have to speak to Shylo like that? That was really disrespectful. Shylo was nothing but kind, understanding and open with you.I was shocked by your response.

Moments like this make me question anything you have to say. It doesn't look good for you. You may push people further to Nassim acting like this.

If you can so easily misunderstand people on here, maybe the same can be said for Nassim?

Social togetherness is vital for a better world. Please don't belittle people by implying they are unintelligent.

Sorry to be so blunt but I feel it had to be said. I still wish you well :-)

Zoe

terri said...

deer Zoe,

i luv u lots, cosmic wunder surround you and bless youre feeling heart, nassim is rong and so is evry "siantist'', like bob too, they think they soo smart, but evryone is smart, and evrythange makes sense, and evry upinion is write, so why suppotr the hegenimy of "siance'', or ''grammer" or nawlidge at all? their are no exputrs, since we are all write!!! lots of luv to you, you are my sister!!! nassim is rong! so is bob! only luv is reel.

Bob said...

Zoe, you didn't notice that Shylo started his comment by saying scientists "have no heart... Meaning no feeling, and thus retarded intuition and sense." That's a way of just writing them off as inhuman.

Would you think someone was "nothing but kind, understanding and open" if they started a comment by saying "the trouble with black people is that they're stupid, they've got no mind of their own"? I really hope you wouldn't. Saying it using forms of polite speech and sticking the words love and humility on the end of it doesn't make it ok.

It's not the kind of thing I'm going to let pass without comment. If someone can't express themselves without dehumanising an entire section of the population, then I don't see what value their conclusions are going to have.

I didn't say Shylo was unintelligent. I hope he/she is thoughtful enough and flexible-minded enough to start thinking for him/herself without basing it on prejudice. I didn't see any of that in what was written. Nothing Shylo has written applies to anything I have written, so far as I can tell. He/she seems to be railing against some fantasy caricature. I'm not sure what the point of that is.

Bob said...

Terri... I don't really understand how I'm wrong, and every scientist is wrong, and every opinion is right. But thanks anyway.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob...

This is what Shylo said...

"The problem with certain "scientists" is that they have no heart.."

Certain scientists. Not all scientists. You did misunderstand.

Shylo also said...

"I apologize if my post came off as attacking, as it was not my intention. Since I do not suffer psychosis, I have no need to be right... and often surrender to the mystery of it all in awe and wonder of the magnificence of the experience. Not everything existing can be seen, and empirically tested! Some things are felt and known...or... not. ;)"
"With love and respect for new horizons of understanding using the Heart and the Mind...
I leave you to your work with blessings,
Shylo"

Bob, you said...

I think I'll ignore Shylo. Maybe someone intelligent and reasonable will alert me if he says anything interesting.

This implies that Shylo is both unintelligent and uninteresting.
I actually loved what he/she wrote!

By going on about other races and comparing what Shylo said to that was unnecessary because Shylo didn't mean ALL scientists. It's clear to me what Shylo meant and it was nothing short of beautiful. Your response was way out of line. Surely I'm not the only one thinking this. If I am then I'm disappointed with all of you.

Respectfully,

Zoe

muzuzuzus said...

I agree wholeheartedly with you Zoe :)

Bob said...

So you think someone would come on and dehumanise "certain scientists" for no reason at all. I don't see why dehumanising anyone is remotely ok.

"You understand such a small portion of this infinite universe, and your arrogance will prevent you from ever comprehending it objectively", and "Return to school and still miss the work of thousands of scientists making new discoveries every moment... Wake up Bob" and so on and so on.

This is Shylo's message of love and humility. Seems pretty obnoxious to me.

So I guess we disagree. That's allowed.

Andrew said...

Certain scientists, Bob, not EVERY scientist! For example, Einstein has no heart. He was cremated.

I'm glad everyone is in love with everyone, it's really comforting, like taking X at woodstock or something. I'm going to go actually accomplish something, but I may glance back here in a month or so to see if this is still going on. There may be a record for greatest ratio of dialog duration to significance.

Loek said...

Dear Zoe,

The first mail of Shylo is imho deeply insulting. 'retarded' Is a very hard word. Where I come from (the Netherlands) is it impossible for a racist to say 'all … are bad'. No one will listen to that crap. So he will say 'A lot of … are good, but there are too many of them still manifesting akward behavior.' A lot more people will listen and agree. What Shylo said, had for me definitely the sound of Dutch racism. To open a reaction with that is imo definitely not humble, but very aggressive and short of any beauty. I had the idea to repeat Shylo's sentence using different groups to show the format of the content. Please try it yourself and let us know how it reads then. It can be that you do not see any resemblance, but I am just asking and curious.

In the second email her/his tone was changed very much for the better. However if you read the second sentence, then you miss the words 'no heart', 'no feeling', 'retarded', 'your arrogance', which have been used by Shylo as well, but he/she does not mention those words. Only Love, Feeling, Heart and Intuition. That shows me that Shylo can be easy in forgetting the negative things of her/himself, but still be good in remembering those of Bob. I can imagine that irritates.

I am not impressed either by the words of Shylo. The sentence 'You could be more wrong than the man you accuse of being wrong' is in direct contradiction with 'That is purely my opinion, such as the opinion of Nassim and others like him, cannot be called "wrong", as it is a perspective and a point of view that can only be seen through the eyes of the beholder.' I expect to understand what she/he is trying to say, but both sentences let me think that Shylo has to work out his/her thinking more profondly. Those words remind me of my words some 20 years ago, when I was around 25. I called that reactive knowledge, which I still had to integrate to make it mine. I was glad that people were patient with me, altough I sometimes crossed the line of decent remarks. After the second reaction does Shylo appear to me as someone with a lot of work in progress, not having a rude heart, but still a very rude pen.

Ubuntu,

Loek

P.S.: Andrew, how shortsighted that the spirit of a cremated person does not have a heart, because you have never seen one. Take more X, please. :-)

Bob said...

Thanks Loek, that's well put.

Andrew: "There may be a record for greatest ratio of dialog duration to significance" - that's excellent.

I take your point. Every remotely sensible blogger type knows that if you disagree publicly with everyone you disagree privately with, that way lies insanity, and virtually no insight. It's about time I stopped denying the obvious and tried to be sensible, n'est-ce pas!

The reason I'm still responding is that, after nearly 12 months, I'm still waiting for even one of the points I've made that invalidates his work to be refuted, or for any evidence to connect even one of Haramein's silly claims to the physical properties of the world we live in.

People are obviously keen to protest their right to like his stuff and agree with it. I don't dispute anyone's right to like it or agree with it at all. But I do think it's worthwhile pointing out that it's utter bollocks and a scam. Not because I disagree with it or don't understand it... but because it's utter bollocks and a scam.

Anyway, do carry on. :)

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob and Loek

Again, this is what Shylo said:
"The problem with certain "scientists" is that they have no heart... Meaning no feeling, and thus retarded intuition and sense. Some things require no belief or proof and are simply known."

I don't believe that this comment was in any way racist. Shylo was pointing out that SOME scientists may lack intuition because of a lack of connection with feeling. The word retarded CAN be a hard word but it was not meant in an insulting way, you could easily replace the word retarded with depleted and it would still carry the same message that I believe was intended.

I think that one good point here is that people can easily misunderstand other people's comments. It's happening all over this page and indeed it happens every day in real life. We should try to be more understanding.

Also, Loek, I'm sorry but I don't really get what you were saying. Can you sum it up in a couple of sentences?

Terri, if you deliberately wrote your message "incorrectly" to prove a point then I totally get it. I understand exactly what you meant. I do think people CAN be right but I guess what confirms this correctness can only ever be another opinion, even if it's based on measurements, it's still an opinion existing in consciousness. Without consciousness, there would be no right or wrong. Is that the kind of point you were making? :-) and thanks for the bit about cosmic wonder. You were very kind.

Muzuzuz, I'm glad you felt that way :-)

Back to Bob, I think that ultimately, only Shylo can give the true meaning of that comment but from reading his/her second post, with the apology and clarification, I don't think it's even necessary. I've read through Shylo's comments and I still think they were full of good intent and thoughts.

To everyone,
Back to the main point about Nassim. If we were all to sit down with him and actually talk face to face, I believe we would have an amazing conversation and even the sceptics would find something interesting and worth listening to. From watching his videos, I don't think he is claiming to know it all as fact, finished. I just think he is pushing for ideas, testing theories and trying to expand the perimeter of thought.

For anyone to come up with a theory for everything, it's going to upset a lot of well established ideas. There will be others that come along and do the same. Even Stephen Hawking does it. No one is questioning his unproven theories. I know all the stuff about present laws of physics and I understand that but at least give Nassim credit for trying. Do you REALLY think he's just out to make money? I can think of easier ways. Maybe he really believes his theories, in which case, if you disagree, you should be aiming to help him get them right.

It's a really fascinating discussion and I think it's good for everyone to give their point, even if we disagree.

Take care everyone

Zoe

muzuzuzus said...

this is just in--what do you think on this Bob?
Italian Scientists Claim to Have Demonstrated Cold Fusion

Bob said...

Hi Zoe. It is interesting... but as I've said, I think you're straightforwardly wrong to treat Haramein as if he's investigating like anyone else. There's no excuse for selling a theory and taking zero interest in whether or not it agrees with physical reality. And there's definitely no excuse for pretending to be a scientist while doing so. What he's doing is unethical in all kinds of ways.

Muz, claims like this appear all over the internet all the time. It's another one. As one of the scientists in the article said, "Pardon my skepticism as I await real data."

Loek said...

Dear Zoe,

I understand the meaning of the words 'all', 'certain' and 'some', capitalizing is not necessary. Still I disagree with your point of view and I have the idea that you did not experiment with my suggestions. Let me create some examples:
The problem with certain "monkeys" is that they have no heart... Meaning no feeling, and thus retarded intuition and sense. Some things require no belief or proof and are simply known.
The problem with certain "dogs" is that they have no heart... Meaning no feeling, and thus retarded intuition and sense. Some things require no belief or proof and are simply known.
The problem with certain "pigs" is that they have no heart... Meaning no feeling, and thus retarded intuition and sense. Some things require no belief or proof and are simply known.
The problem with certain "frogs" is that they have no heart... Meaning no feeling, and thus retarded intuition and sense. Some things require no belief or proof and are simply known.
Please replace those animals with the 'proper' subset of people in your country.
Those are the words a Dutch bigot (let's stick to that term, as racist is in some other countries much more loaded then over here) would use. He would always use 'some' or 'certain' and not 'all' as this would not be taken serious. Najib, a Maroccean Dutch comedian, made a parody using public statements like 'I am not a bigot, belief me, among my best friends there is a …, but listen, they are not all that good. Some are …, and some are … and some are …. and some are.... At the end of the list one can not imagine anymore that there was not one of those …, who was not guilty by at least one of those 'facts'.

If I say that you can be more wrong then Bob and in the next statement say that Bob can not be wrong, because it is the opinion of Bob, then I have to say that you can not be wrong either. How could I make a logical distinction between what you say or what Bob is saying? And if Bob can't be wrong, how could you be more wrong? (Animal Farm: more equal then others). I expect Shylo to have one coherent line of thinking, albeit these remarks show otherwise. I know this kind of inconsistencies of myself and they were abundantly present when I was around 20 – 25 years. I will still have them, but in different realms of logic I presume.

Loek said...

Dear Bob,

I have followed your discussion over the year and I really liked it to see how you consistently tried to show people why Nassim Harameins theories are wrong. In my opinion you are very motivated to establish truth and help other people to stay on the right track. I think Andrew is missing the point of your passion to help other people and prevent misconceptions to be spread around. I can only guess why you have chosen to focus on Nassim Haramein, but somehow I think he hasn't liked it. I am thankful to you though as it saved me a lot of time.
The internet is vast, people do have very very different opinions and ways of logic, during this line of conversation a lot of them have passed and it is very interesting to see. I agree that with Zoe. I can hardly believe that you were really waiting for some debunking of your proofs, as you are well aware that that is near the impossible. I can imagine though that you were hoping on some serious answer from the NH-camp. But that would practically imply that they had to stop their work, which is contradiction with the interests (not motivation) they have. Can one ask that from someone else?

Ubuntu,

Loek

Bob said...

Hi Loek.

"I can imagine though that you were hoping on some serious answer from the NH-camp." - Yes, you're basically right. I was hoping for someone to at least try to debate. It would have been fun.

I have to admit that it seems they do have enough intelligence to know that it could only have shown them in a bad light.

Perhaps they realise that it is unfortunate that, unlike real science, they set themselves up in such a way that they simply cannot accept any refutation without losing a lot of face and a lot of immediate income. That's a bit of a trap. Too bad.

It's been great to have your support here, Loek.
Ubuntu indeed. :)

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob and Loek,

Bob, I really think you do assume you know Nassim's personal intentions. Only Nassim himself can know this.
It's not fair to put words into his mouth for him. You don't know if he wholeheartedly believes his own theory do you? Where is your evidence that Nassim does not believe his own theory? If you have some evidence then I'll believe he's out to make money.

Loek, sorry, the capitalising was just to emphasise important words. I never doubted you understanding of them. I hope you weren't offended. I don't like to be rude at all. This does highlight how messages can come across wrong here.
I did not experiment because I wasn't sure what you were getting at but now I understand. However, I still think Shylo isn't being racist and you may be over analysing his/her words. Regardless, it doesn't matter to me, I just thought Bob was quite rude to Shylo following Shylo's apology. That's not important to the debate anymore unless Shylo has anything to add.

Bob and Loek, I, myself am not part of "NH-camp" or "Bob-camp" LOL, My place here is neutral. I am willing to hear everyone's thoughts. All of my comments were serious and I think others were too. I still don't think you can say that Nassim is 100% wrong because you have not attempted to present any evidence regarding ancient history, among many other topics he spoke about. Your debate only covers physics. A lot of the things he mentions would be very difficult to be proved or disproved because they are based in the past.
Have you done any research on ancient Egypt for example?

Bob, are you willing to confirm that you are not an expert in every subject covered and therefore cannot say with 100% certainty, as a scientist, that Nassim is completely wrong about 100% of his presentation? I don't even think Einstein himself could say no with 100% confidence. If you can't say no, then you should give him a break.

Ill I'm getting at is that Nassim is being slated here and I don't think it's very nice.

I hope you can see what I'm trying to say in the way that I mean it. It really in with good intentions.

To the continual search for truth,
UBUNTU (Loek, I love the meaning of this by the way - "we are who we are because of who everyone is" - it's what I totally believe in) :-)

Zoe

Bob said...

Yes, I can see what you're trying to say Zoe.

Yes, of course I am 100% certain that he's absolutely wrong about everything he says that relates to physics or maths. That's the point of this blog. I'm not trying to put forward a viewpoint or express an opinion. The guy is absolutely wrong, it's absolutely clear, and I've explained why.

I don't have to assume anything about his intentions. I made this point (slightly facetiously) over here. The guy is just wrong. He has never varied his storyline to take into account any observation in the real world or explained why anyone should believe it when it gives no correct results at all and can be taken apart extremely easily by anyone with any understanding of the subject. Not even the most incompetent and disreputable scientist would say the things he is saying.

My strong personal opinion is that he is dishonest and manipulative, and that he's very happy to abuse the trust of those who see him as a scientist if it maintains his popularity and keeps the funding flowing. Whether or not he actually believes this funding is for great work for mankind is actually pretty irrelevant.

I don't know all the details of his other work, but I've never seen anyone back it up with independent research, I've seen plenty of people tear it to shreds (here's one as an example), and I have very good reasons not to trust him in the slightest.

You say it's "not nice" to slate him. Who would want to live in a world where people like this can carry on their charlatanry without criticism? I don't have any sympathy at all with wanting to be "nice" to him.

If you still don't believe what I'm saying here, then let's not argue any more. I don't mind anyone 'keeping an open mind' about him any more than I mind anyone 'keeping an open mind' about the moon being made of cheese. It's entirely up to you. Just don't try to convince me that you're being open minded, ok? If you're unable to see what's in front of your nose, open-minded is not the word.

Sorry to put my case so stridently, but I'm genuinely surprised after all this discussion that you're asking me whether or not I'm sure. :-)

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob, I was asking if you were 100% sure about 100% of his presentation, meaning the other non-physics stuff too. :-)
It's ok, you answered it anyway above when you said:
"I don't know all the details of his other work"

Thanks for the link on other assessments of his theories, I'll look at that too.

Anyway, I've been looking at some of your analysis of his physics theories and I thought you might be happier discussing his physics here. I am genuinely interested in your opinions :-) I'll take them in small parts to avoid typing masses of stuff in one go.

OK, these are a few to start with, they are not in the order you mentioned because I need to look up some stuff first:

1) SPACE IS NOT EMPTY
Space is a vacuum but light travels through it so it is in fact full of energy. This really made sense to me. Is this wrong?

2) NEWTON'S 3rd DEFINITION
You are right, Newton's 3rd definition does refer to objects. You said Nassim was wrong because he was referring to the volume of space. What if he was referring to the objects that are moving through space due to expansion? Would his statement be valid then?

3) FORCE BETWEEN PROTONS
You said that this was wrong, which I can understand because it looks really strange! Where can I find the correct value?

This will do for now but I will come back with some more physics discussions. It's a lot more interesting than discussing what someone might or might not have meant ;-)

Thanks in advance for your reply, it's appreciated,

Zoe

Loek said...

Dear Zoe,


I was not offended at all. I told you about my understanding of these words in order that we would not have to repeat that again.

I am not in a camp-side either, now you might be over analyzing (tong in cheek, no intention to make it even). I think for myself, try to find reason and common sense and imo Bob has made an excellent case. Furthermore the world is big and interesting enough not to spent too much time on theories that are not that good.
In the mean time I have read Spinoza, Schopenhauer, about Nietzsche, Zen Buddhism, networking and so on and so on. All these people made much more sense then Nassim Haramein. I followed the course Bob linked about astrophysics and really enjoyed all 24 colleges. It let me think about particles and I really had nice time doing that.

Please be efficient while you are openminded otherwise you might find yourself stuck listening to people who are only good in getting attention. Being 'nice' does not help yourself in this respect. → well, you have made the same conclusion, I guess. :-) Actually, on a spiritual level I do think Bob has been nice to Nassim Haramein. One can define nice saying that is being friendly all the time, but that can prevent someone from healing. Bob gave Nassim Haramein the opportunity to stop all this and restart with his life. He reopened the way for Nassim Haramein to get back in touch with reality. I hope that he will get the courage to do so.

Ubuntu,

Loek

Bob said...

1. Space is a vacuum but light travels through it so it is in fact full of energy. This really made sense to me. Is this wrong? - yes, mostly. It depends how you interpret those words and what you want to deduce from it.

Space with light travelling through it obviously has light travelling through it, and therefore has energy. That's not vacuum energy, that's just the energy of the light. Space without light travelling through it still has a kind of energy - vacuum energy - but it's not like any kind of energy we're familiar with, so I'd strongly recommend finding out more about it before settling on any kind of picture that 'makes sense' to you...

(This isn't an idea of Haramein's - it's been common physics knowledge for over 50 years. Haramein has just taken it, misunderstood it entirely and misused it to make his ideas sound convincing to people who don't know any better.)

2. Would his statement be valid then? - I can't say whether a statement is valid or not if I don't know what it is. I can't think of one that would be.

3. Where can I find the correct value? - you can get the general idea (without the complexities) from here. If you want to compare values, note that one Newton is 100,000 dynes (1N=10^5 dynes).

The reality is rather complicated because (unlike Haramein's model) it's a quantum system. The concept of 'force' isn't used much in nuclear physics, because although it has an intuitive definition, it isn't especially useful for quantum systems. It generally gives way to 'binding energy' or 'potential' which are far more precise concepts. You can find detailed figures for the proton separation energy for any nucleus, which is much more relevant. The proton separation energy in Haramein's model is 124,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 MeV. As a comparison, the largest proton separation energy in the real world is 20 MeV.

Anonymous said...

Loek,

The things you have been reading seem very interesting. Some I don't know about. I'll look for the astrophysics link too. Sounds good.
I don't mean to be nice in a naive way, just polite really. Thanks for the advice, I'll take it on board.
I do try to focus my attention where it is rightly needed but sometimes it requires a little working out before I can close the door. I don't want to overlook anything. Even if Nassim is wrong, I'm going to learn a lot in the process of finding out why and that to me is time well spent.
I think Nassim should continue if that's what he believes in. He should seek confirmation with others and work further to get to the right conclusions. I don't think he should just give up though. I understand if you don't agree with his theories because they do appear to be strange at times. I'm 50/50 really at the moment. I guess time will tell. I would really like to hear what the well known physicists think about him.

Take care Loek
Ubuntu ;-)

Zoe

Anonymous said...

Bob,

1) Thanks. I'll look up vacuum energy. I really just wanted to know whether space is actually full or empty. That is, the space between planets, stars galaxies etc.

2) His statement about Newton's 1st law (3rd). You said it was silly because the law is based on objects. If Nassim said that the expansion must require an opposite reaction du to the movement of objects in space (planets, stars, galaxies), would this still be silly? He wouldn't be breaking Newton's laws if he was referring to the movement of mass through space. Really, the expansion is just that after all, we measure it by the changing distance between bodies in space. I hope I'm making sense ;-0

3) Interesting...will have to check out the info on this one :-)

Thanks

Zoe

Bob said...

2. Ah, I see. "If Nassim said that the expansion must require an opposite reaction du to the movement of objects in space (planets, stars, galaxies), would this still be silly?" - Yup. There's just no reason to require anything like that.

If you explode an object in space, the pieces will fly outward. Newton's third law applies, of course, and what it says is very clear: for every amount of momentum going one way, an equal amount of momentum will go the opposite way too. Picture a firework going off high overhead and you'll know what I mean.

Anonymous said...

You seem to be a logical person. I'd like to ask your opinion on some ideas of mine, it's not a very long read. Just something iv'e been pondering for years. I am only 19 so Im sure right off the bat you will not take me seriously, but I would appreciate some feedback from a man of science. I'd say it all right now but I don't have much time at the moment and I'd like to know it's going to be read before I go through the effort.

You can refer to me as Charlie if you want.

Anonymous said...

Er... didn't he started his speech saying that the emanation point of the spiral will NEVER touch the W-shape intersection?
I really don't know what you're trying to disprove..

Bob said...

Hi Charlie - yes, feel free to email me your thoughts and I'll take a look.

Bob said...

Anon - no, he was describing the fact that the spiral never reaches the emanation point, which is true. It's a logarithmic spiral - as you go in, it gets closer and closer to the emanation point but never arrives.

My point was that he's clearly claiming that the W intersection is the emanation point. Which is not true.

Anonymous said...

He isn`t cleary stating that, he is actually `describing the fact that the spiral NEVER REACHES the emanation point`.

Bob said...

That's exactly what I said.

And he's also claiming that the W intersection is the emanation point, which is not true. He shows the intersection of the W and says "the spiral is trying to get to that point, and it'll never get there."

There's more detail on this in this post if you're interested. I've pointed out plenty more ridiculous things that he said about that spiral over there. They're all exceedingly silly.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever heard of Pane Andov? He`s putting info out there, extending Haramein`s work in a even more new age fashion.

I know it`s completelly out of your intrests, but i`m posting anyway, maybe you could find more stuff for your investigation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZRrKi99mno

Sorry if I`m being inconvenient.

Bob said...

Hmm. He thinks the sun will go into red giant phase in 2012. That sounds like fun.

Anonymous said...

So what do you think about his 'meditation orbs'?
Just dust particles flying around?

Bob said...

Who knows. The world is full of people who develop the idea that they're some kind of prophet, and countless more who will cling to anyone who'll hold their magician projections and make them feel part of something special. What they give is stories and empty claims. If that's your thing, make the most of it.

Anonymous said...

Hello, this is charlie. Just wondering if you had a chance to look at my email. I'm theturtleschool@gmail.com

Bob said...

Hi Charlie - yes, thanks... I'll get back to you soon.

Anonymous said...

i didn't read all comments, maybe the question already was asked.
u are trying to debunk nassim haramein. that he "is not that scientific as he should be", which is pretty obv, when watching his videos. (pseudoscience)

i came across of one of his videos yesterday. so i didn't do my own research about him or his work, i just entered his name and came directly to your blog. so one of my first questions here are.
who are you?
what do you do for a living?
are you a physicist?
what legitimates you to debunk this guy, who is pretty obv not a prefessional scientist?

Anonymous said...

oh nevermind, should have read the complete post ;)

Steel Community said...

You shouldn't criticize somebody by watching the 'free' low resolution tape records of his. You have to watch the entire thing to have an idea about him.

The current science is not going anywhere. It is stuck due to the idiotic style of repeating wrong things over and over again.

Go do your homework and watch more about his 'not-free' stuff.

Bob said...

I've seen hours and hours of his stuff, and I've read his papers. It's all bullshit. I've explained why it's bullshit.

It's very easy to find example after example of things he's claimed that contradict what is observed in the real world. I've asked over and over for anyone to give me anything specific that he's ever said that relates in any specific way to anything specific in reality. It's been a year, I've had no such response from anyone.

I've explained why the guy is a blatant fraud and why his attempts at science are incompetent, and given hundreds of reasons and examples.

Your response is give no reason at all as to why anything I've said is wrong, and no reason at all as to why anything he's said is right, but to just tell me I should pay him for his bullshit?

That's probably the most idiotic comment I've ever had.

And you're arrogant enough to come here and sum up science in two sentences... is that based on your deep experiences and profound understanding of the nature of modern science? Or is it pure prejudice? If it's not one, it's the other, my friend...

Patricio said...

You're another math fanatic man. Your traditional maths and phisics cannot explain the universe because it's perfect. Trying to explain it with maths is like trying to explain Pi. You can't. At a certain point you will need an irrational perfect numer that closes de loop. If not you always keep dividing, you always keep rationalizing. Read some ancient philosophy and educate yourself. Try with the Kybalion

Bob said...

I'm not explaining the universe. I'm letting people know why Haramein is full of crap, incompetent and a blatant fraud. You don't need to be a math fanatic to see that.

If you want to follow the Kybalion, that's fine by me.

Anonymous said...

you guys are idiots. Are any of you scientists? cuz if you're not educated with a phd in physics then you really can't say anything really.. you guys don't even fully understand what he's saying to begin with.

Nassim's theories are backed-up by mathematical and geometrical proof. Ask any scientist... in the science world, if the mathematics and geometry prove something is true, then chances are, it is true.

It sounds like most of you guys are "afraid" of any significant discoveries in this field.

your comments are rediculous.. there is no physical, scientific or mathematical proof to your criticism.. it's is simply you ranting on with your closed minded skepticism.

educate yourself.. do the math.. run the numbers.. the numbers don't lie. nassim may actually be true...

if what nassim says is true then it could open the door to new ultra-advanced technologies that could help all of mankind. It's a positive thing.

Bob said...

It's not true. That's the problem. Not true. For a whole boatload of very good reasons, as I've explained in detail. Do you disagree with any of them? I'm interested in why, if you have any specific reasons. Or did you just come here to be obnoxious to anyone who doesn't buy into the same brand of wishful thinking as you?

Anonymous said...

Some people don't grasp it, I have the gift of not being formally taught so I understand it a little quicker. It's simple and beautiful, natures sacred geometry. It really is that simple.

Teach these re-discovered findings to a bunch of kids and see what they come up with in a few years.

Sometimes it's easier if you aren't formally taught or engrained one way or the other. I have a strong understanding of what's being touted as modern "accepted" academic theories of and I see the fault in them easily.
Nassim's UFT is harmonic and that rings true with the universe. You can always look to nature to get an explanation, it just makes sense...

Quantum mechanics and other aspects of physics is too sloppy and not elegant in their attempts to unify. Regardless I can't wait until we all understand it and put it to good use for the better of the planet. There is a whole world of "invisible to us energy" out there waiting for us, Tesla knew.

When a huge coronal mass ejection out our grid we will be looking into this more seriously, are we guilty of being lazy because we usually don't change unless we are forced too...

Peace and love,
Kyle

Anonymous said...

"Quantum mechanics and other aspects of physics is too sloppy and not elegant in their attempts to unify. "

spoken like someone who has no clue what they are talking about.

Bob said...

Yes, unfortunately because of pseuds like Haramein, we now have to deal with all these people who somehow don't regard it as arrogant to judge quantum mechanics from a basis of ignorance.

They read a few things about it, or hear a few opinions, and they keep themselves completely unaware that they don't understand anything of the theory.

They really do believe they have an informed opinion - and they really do believe they're open-minded, despite the fact that they're ignoring the entire logical structure of the theory in favour of their own opinions.

Glib dismissals and empty claims of 'strong understanding' are easy to make, and have been a cliché for a long time. If our commenter wants to correct me, I'd be happy to discuss the properties of Hilbert spaces, entanglement entropy, Breit-Wigner resonances or the structure of the renormalisation group with him/her. He can perhaps explain to me specifically what faults he/she sees in them. That would be more interesting.

Regarding coronal mass ejections - let's look at it this way: if a huge CME takes out the grid, you can be quite sure that the only people who will turn to Haramein are those who have no involvement in power generation or distribution, no experience of the operation of major supply networks, no intimate familiarity with the influence of the sun on the earth's electromagnetic fields, no understanding born of lifelong observation of solar plasma dynamics.

The people who actually work in those areas will have jobs to do and responsibilities to perform, perhaps even lives to save. Like anyone else who actually needs to be relied on for something other than story-telling, they'll use real science. Lord help us if any of them don't.

Ashok said...

why are you guys so rigid?

why cant u be a bit open minded to a new way of thinking, also it does not mean that you have to accept them or follow them.

how many of you guys who had commented against him can/have come up with new ways of approaching the things even if it is silly( haven't any of you tried to think newly accepting the limitations in our current systems??)

it is really sad on your part to discourage the basic nature of innovation :(

pity on u guys.....

Bob said...

Hi Ashok.

I believe absolutely in open-mindedness. Which is why I've gone to a great deal of effort to explore Haramein's theory, to look at it from as many angles as I can, and see in what way, if any, it corresponds to the world around me.

The result, in every case, has been that it does not correspond to the world around us in any way at all. I've explained why.

Is it open minded to then ignore that?

Of course not. If someone tells you it's Friday, but when you investigate you find that it's Wednesday, it's not open-minded to ignore that and treat Friday as a new way of seeing things. It's just daft.

Is your strategy to just insult people who have different views to you, ignore all the reasons they give, and provide no reasons at all in favour of your views? Is that your idea of open-minded?

If you have a case for Haramein, please give it. If you have a case against any of my reasoning, please give it. I'm very happy to consider everything you have to say, and discuss in as much detail as you like.

Bob said...

When someone shows up on comment streams to accuse other people of not being open-minded, you can almost guarantee that they will
(a) preach their view of reality as superior without giving any reason,
(b) take no notice of any of the details of the discussion and
(c) decline to actually discuss anything further.

It's some freaky idea of open-minded they've got, it really is! And there are so many of these people! :-/

Regarding "discouraging the basic nature of innovation", what could be worse than clinging to and selling ideas that have been proven false. Haramein is a fake, with a knack for attracting people using stories and a dishonest brand to sell. If you want to innovate, gullibility to this stuff is the last thing you need. I hope more people will take the time to look a little deeper.

Anonymous said...

When our knowledge is limited, our understanding is limited and when understanding is limited our thinking is also limited...Few of this researches are beyond human intellectual. so it would be hard for us to believe him on few concepts ,however if we realize or think beyond human intellectual we would understand his point of view. Thanks

Charlie said...

Hello bob, i would imagine that you remember me (theturtleschool) I must admit i feel a bit disappointed that you havent really gotten back to me. I have been very eager to read your thoughts but know i am starting to believe you have either decided it wasn't worth your time to reply or that it simply upset you, and you have attempted to forget it entirely. What an unfortunate scenario that would be. I can only speculate at this point. So maybe you could let me know if i should keep holding my breath or if i should piss off.

Bob said...

Charlie!! Oh no, I'm sorry, I'd completely forgotten!

No, I said I'd get back to you and that was completely my intention - no attempting to forget was involved. I read your email, and thought it deserved more consideration than I was able to give it at the time.

I will try to get back to you. I don't want to pretend I can promise that anything I have to say will be of any interest to you or worth waiting for, but I did feel that it was something worth giving some thought to, and I gave you my word. My apologies again. I have a busy few days ahead but I'll get back to you next weekend – I've set a reminder - you've every right to send me a harsh email if you don't hear from me by then.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Bob. I am interested in your thoughts on the matter. Hope to hear from you soon.
-charlie

Anonymous said...

Dear Bob,

You and people like you are the reason why this world is not developing. If you only applied your anger into something productive rather than trying to slander one man then maybe you could solve these problems.

Get a life.

Bob said...

Perhaps you're right.

Perhaps what the world really needs is fewer people who are prepared to question and debate the ideas out there, and more people to just take things on faith.

And perhaps what the world really needs is more people like you who misinterpret a reasoned criticism of an idea as 'anger'. Yes, people who take offence at whoever disagrees with them, there aren't enough of those in the world.

And perhaps what the world really needs is fewer people who present careful explanations of their point of view and open up debates, and more people like you who are prepared to disdainfully accuse others of 'slander' without giving any justification at all.

Sounds lovely.

That could be your "I have a dream" speech, whaddya say.

Anonymous said...

Hi bob

what had haramein ever done to you?? I think he is only stating the things which according to him appears to be true.Also I think every one has their right to express himself whether it is right or wrong or some other shit.

It seems like you are determined to crush that poor fellow with your "blog" or rather your post(the name it self saying Fraud or Sage.

may be you should come up with some lecture series to better do the job you are doing right now.

All the best

Bob said...

Haramein has never done anything to me, nor I to him.

Perhaps he is stating the things which according to him appear true. He is welcome to do this, and I have never expressed any wish to stop him.

However, if it is entirely wrong, if it misleads thousands of people, and if his science is fake and the image he promotes of himself is false – all of which I have very good reasons believe are the case – then surely it is to be expected that there will be people who will say so?

Reality is not Haramein's to invent as he pleases without anyone saying anything.

This blog is not some kind of personal vendetta - I'm concerned with what's true, not with any person. If a guy makes a big public profile out of talking crap, then he's got to expect people to point out that it's crap, and to explain why for the benefit of anyone who cares about the truth.

You don't really believe that an obscure blog with no publicity and no profile is capable of "crushing" a man with a vast amount of PR all over the internet, thousands of devoted followers and a successful brand, do you? The only way something like that could happen is if he's set himself up for a fall by selling stories that any thinking person is capable of seeing are false, and claiming them to be true, and he gets found out.

If you want to pity a "poor fellow" who wanted to pretend to be a revolutionary physicist and sell fake scientific ideas but was unfortunately exposed, then that's fine.

You'll perhaps understand that not everyone will see things your way.

batcave911 said...

"Now we have moon hoaxers here"
and MAYBE that was a plant, someone here wanting to discredit him.
Truth is Nassim Haramein knew a few things before many other physicists did, like sun spots coming from the center of the star, and black holes being at the center of galaxies. There are a few others i cant remember now as well...

Bob said...

"Truth is Nassim Haramein knew a few things before many other physicists did, like sun spots coming from the center of the star, and black holes being at the center of galaxies"

That's interesting. Do you have any record of what he said, when he said it and what reasons he gave, and when this was accepted by other physicists? For either of those things?

Please try to remember the other examples. It'd be good to see something with some content on here, rather than people randomly making unjustified claims and not bothering to attempt to back them up or discuss them further...

Bob said...

Ok, feel free to prove me wrong but I'm guessing that you're not interested in discussing or investigating whether or not anything you're saying is true. Normal for Haramein aoplogists. React, blurt, avoid thinking, disappear.

In case anyone's interested, the suggestion that black holes lie at the centre of galaxies was put forward by Zel'dovich & Novikov in 1964, and were confirmed by detailed observations in the 1980s (see here). Regarding the black hole at the centre of our own galaxy, any remaining doubt was definitively put to rest by direct observations by ESO in 2002.

Regarding sun spots, they're known to extend less than 1% of the way down to the centre (see this investigation). They don't come from the centre of the star. The energy that drives them – and all other processes on the sun - does come from the centre. This was first suggested by Eddington in 1920, based on detailed understanding of the physical dynamics of gases in extreme conditions (see here for details of the history of the debates, investigations, observations and experiments involved).

Haramein, on the other hand, has never predicted anything - he repeats undigested ideas from popular science and makes the rest up in entertaining ways. The supporters who bother to stand up for him consistently give nothing but empty claims, and appear to completely lack the inquisitiveness to look any deeper for themselves.

Just sayin'.

Anonymous said...

Interesting...I think there could be elements of truth with Nassim as he does talk about many different things but a lot of his theories are just speculation. Bob is right in the fact that we should do our own research to work out for ourselves what we can believe to be fact. However, I can't disregard everything Nassim says. He opens some very interesting questions that should inspire us to do our "homework" rather than accepting the claims too quickly. Believing and knowing are not the same.

Nicolás said...

Hi bob. You've got a great blog. Thanks for putting a link to my post about Nassim.

Nicolás.

Bob said...

No problem Nicolás. Apologies for not commenting on your post – my Spanish is limited to Google Translate :(

But I like your explanation of Haramein. I've had lots of enquiries from Spanish-speaking people, so I was very glad to find your blog.

Anonymous said...

It drives me insane when someone who's not English, or American comes up with new ideas, mainly within physics, and ow jesusssss he's a fraud!!!! Ow my god, let's prove him wrong!!

Maybe if Nassim was English or an retarded American (prime example, spending $350 million dollars to find out what an comet is made of.. recession??) His theories would be no doubt be right!!

I could sit on here all day and tell you d*ck heads (those who seem hell bent on proving he's a fraud) how sad, pathetic and wrong you are, but why waste any more time to ridicule morons like yourselves.

Bob said...

My criticisms have nothing to do with his nationality. That's an absurd thing to say.

If it's your belief that Haramein has the right to run an organisation dedicated to supporting itself by selling falsehoods and misleading people without anyone criticising him at all and without anyone helping others to see why it's wrong, then of course we disagree profoundly.

I believe in honesty and integrity, and I believe people have a right to know when they are being lied to. You can call me what you will – it's very clear that you don't have a single reason to dispute anything I've said. You just don't like it. Well, That's too bad.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob and hi to that insulting person too:
After the link Bob put in the last comment, I can't help adding this, sorry!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo&NR=1

Dan

Terrence... said...

Many scientists don't believe in God simply because the scientific method has never, except for possibly one instance, the maths of which is beyond my understanding, been used to prove, to any degree of probability, that God does exist.

First of all, we'd have to know what a thing is to "prove" or disprove it, and in that we may be speculating in any case.

Secondly, the inability to prove, or even to understand, something does not prove it incorrect.

I think that Nassim's ideas are worth investigating as he's taking the direction of uniting certain fields of study. I doubt that he, like so many others who consider themselves intelligent, has proved anything. However, his ideas DO help ME to make sense of some things that were previously more difficult to comprehend than now.

I may be wrong to say that it's a nice day if I can't prove it scientifically, BUT, that doesn't mean it's a lousy day, AND, what if Nassim is on the right track?

I appreciate your criticism, good move, but don't act as if you actually know the truth. If you do, publish a paper that conclusively proves that you do know the truth.

It would improve YOUR credibility if your readers knew that YOU were also fallible and not fanatically one eyed.

t3rry

Bob said...

Hello Terrence.

You're right to say that the inability to prove or understand something does not prove it incorrect.

That is why I've gone to such lengths to try to reassure people that I do understand Haramein's theories. It is why I have requested time and time again that commenters actually discuss the content of his theories here rather than merely their opinions (and I wish they would).

That is also why I've gone through several of Haramein's theories and presentations in detail and proved that they are entirely at odds with observable reality.

There is no inability to prove or understand Haramein's theories here. The question "what if Nassim is on the right track" is not relevant when it can be so easily be proved that he is not.

But - once again, as I have so many times, I invite debate or discussion on the details of his attempts at physics if you feel I have misunderstood anything.

That aside, if Haramein's theories have made you feel better then that is a fine thing and I wish you well.

That doesn't mean he is not a fraud for making his pretentious claims, and referring to his work as science. I've tried my best to explain in as many ways as I can the reasoning behind my view that he is a fake.

When you say "don't act as if you know the truth", do you mean about life and the universe and everything? Of course I don't. If you mean about whether Haramein is a fake, then yes, I do claim to know that.

This is a blog about science, not God or any other field of study. I am making no claims other than what I have said about Haramein's pretence to be doing science. If you want to tout him as a good story-teller that makes you feel more comfortable with your view of the world, of course that is fine.

So please, if you're challenging my take on Haramein's 'scientific' views, rather than just call me "fanatically one-eyed", why not let me know what in particular you disagree with. I'm interested to hear other people's points of view, and to know what I may have said that misrepresents anything of Haramein's. That's what I've requested of commenters since the very start, and I think it's a reasonable way for fallible people like me to do things. I'm interested, and - as I've said many many times - if I've said anything wrong, I'd really like to know what it is.

If you're not interested in challenging my take of Haramein's 'scientific' views, then you're entitled to express your opinions, but don't try to tell me how to do science. That doesn't make sense.

Thanks for taking the time to comment - I hope you'll say more.

Anonymous said...

Hello again Bob, it's been a little while since I recieved your email. I would very much like to discuss things further. I did appreciate your input, it is very refreshing to speak with someone who does not entirely agree or disagree with what i have to say. It's been a strenuous month and I do not want to force a reply to your email so I am taking my time with it. I do hope your still willing to continue our conversation.
-charlie

lichencomputer said...

Hi Bob, I thought I saw your email address but cant find it now. I wrote something to you about all this, but its a bit long...

Bob said...

@Charlie - sure, would be good to hear from you again.

@lichencomputer - please do: it's at the top right of the blog (just replace the * and * by @ and .) Hope that's not too obscure - I get spam if I write it out.

Terrence... said...

Hi Bob
I watched your links: the snow leopard and the blue dot, and was pleasantly amazed. Yes, leopards are people too, so beautiful, and it's worth our effort to save the earth from ourselves, for various reasons.

As for Haramein, I do not know if he's right or wrong BUT given my point of view, which is one of having been an athesist but finding God via my unqualified reading on "astrophysics" which was a hobby to me till I found God, Haramein might be right, yet by Googling Nassim Haramein I found my way to your blog and your criticism. It's the criticism I object to. Write about your own work in all its positive glory.

As for "observable reality", some facts are only availably to us via an authority. We believe or not believe, up to us. Such a fact is one's father. The authority on "who is our father" is our mother. We accept her authority. We cannot disprove her although the possibility that she may be lying or mistaken is there. But why would she, she loves her child(ren).

My point is that observable reality is not a reliable authority. Of course religious fanatics will lie to you, just like any other fanatic. There's no reason though why anyone with a loving heart would lie to you.

The snow leopard opens up your humanity to me. As one person to another person I humbly request you to tone down the criticism, even if you believe Haramein is wrong.

I know that you accept your scientific method as your authority but others may not (not that I am any fan of Nexus Magazine - hippy paranoia, I think). What if Nassim, against the odds, was right and you'd talked people out of accepting him?

Anyway, Bob
Keep doing what you believe it, I am sure you'll find the way.
Love
t3rry

Anonymous said...

If you said that you disagree with Nassim’s ideas in general would make sense. However, when you say that this guy has no deeper understanding of physics, seems to be just plain jalousie. Do you claim that dr. Rauscher also has no deep understanding of physics? Sounds like an old Englishman hating the all world and thinking you are better then everybody else. Like those “royal” clowns parading around in a middle ages uniforms.
Increasing the mass of proton makes so much sense in explaining why there is so much energy released in nuclear energy. Also, Nassim’s explanation of the origin of spin beats up any standard physics model explanation. Instead of starting a blog to bash this guy, maybe you should put forward better explanation for the origin of spin.
Well, now you know how a personal attack feels, don't you?

Bob said...

Hi Anonymous. I'm sorry you feel that way. And no, I don't feel that you have made a personal attack, because you're not describing what I have done or what I have said. Like many people on this comment stream, you're inventing your own version of me and attacking that.

I can understand it, if you don't like what I'm saying.

What I've done here is to explain the huge flaws in the things that Haramein is claiming, and to show that he really, honestly, does not have a clue what he's talking about. I've tried my best.

If instead of telling me I've no right to criticise him, you would find a single thing that I've said that is incorrect or mistaken in my criticism of his work, then I would of course be interested to hear that. I'm not especially interested in your moralising. Haramein is a fake, his theories are false, I have explained why in broad terms and I have gone into the details and explained why in very specific terms. Explain to me what I've said that's incorrect, or get over it. I don't care how upset his fans get. His work is fake. If there's no answer to criticisms, they don't go away.

If you're interested in my explanation of the flaws in Haramein's theories of the origin of spin, I've set them out as clearly as I can here. Perhaps you could start there.

Vijay.Sharma said...

The only thing that has come out from this blog post is that the author seems desperate to prove Nassim Haramien wrong. It looks like some kinda personal attack. He calls him a fraud, charlatan who makes money fooling people, etc but also admits he knows nothing about NH and that he has never met NH in person. I wouldn't call someone a charlatan and a fraud and assassinate his character and question his integrity without knowing anything about him as a person. More importantly I would rather focus on the subject and keep my personal views about someone's character out of scope when I am commenting about the subject matter.

It only portrays you as being desperate (God knows why) to see this NH fellow fail. All your "debunking" is based on assertions that conventional sciences explain the universe the best. The reason science progresses is because no convention stays conventional. Sometimes you need to be able to open your mind and think creatively. If you, as a scientist, are going to parrot only what others have told you, what is your value or addition to the science and human community? But if you are not a theoretical scientist and are actually an applied scientist who works to develop something out of the conventional understandings then you are adding some value to the community I guess. So are you just a theoretical scientist with no original thinking or are you an applied scientist? I think you wouldn't mind a comment such as mine given that you don't seem to mind assassinating the character of someone you haven't even met

Bob said...

Vijay, please see my response to your other comment here. Let me know if you're interested in discussion, or if you just want to spout your views and ignore any attempt on my part to say what is actually going on here. Hopefully the former.

Vijay.Sharma said...

I checked on the conference web page - the one in which NH's paper received a certificate and you think is a fraud. They mention the international scientific community for the conference as -
Igor Aleksander (UK), Adel F. Antippa (Canada), Ioannis Antoniou (Greece), Viveca Asproth (Sweden), Péter B. Béda (Hungary), Mark Burke (Ireland), George F. Chapline (USA), John Collier (South Africa), John G. Cramer (USA), Daniel M. Dubois (Belgium), Andrée C. Ehresmann (France), Rodolfo Faglia (Italy), Adina Magda Florea (Romania), Walter Freeman (USA), Yukio-Pegio Gunji (Japan), Anita Hakansson (Sweden), Mikulás Huba (Slovakia), Louis H. Kauffman (USA), Etienne E. Kerre (Belgium), Dobilas Kirvelis (Lithuania), George J. Klir (USA), Vadim F. Krotov (Russia), Michele Malatesta (Italy), Gianfranco Minati (Italy), Edgar D. Mitchell (USA), Laurent Nottale (France), Eufrosina Otlacan (Romania), Karl Pribram (USA), Otto E. Rössler (Germany), Peter Rowlands (United-Kingdom), Alfonso Rueda (USA), Walter Schempp (Germany), Eric Schwarz (Switzerland), José Luis Simões da Fonseca (Portugal), Pawel Siwak (Poland), Ernst von Glasersfeld (USA), Lotfi A. Zadeh (USA)

Are each of these people frauds too?

Bob said...

I don't know, Vijay. All I know is that Haramein is entirely wrong to call his work physics, as it has nothing to do with the scientific method and his results have nothing to do with the real world.

I didn't say his certificate was a fraud. What I said was this. Let me know if you disagree with any of it.

Bob said...

(To clarify... I should have said let me know if you have any reasons to disagree with any of it. I can see you have opinions.)

Vijay.Sharma said...

Bob, I'll respond to you later in the day (just noticed that you responded to all my comments when I refreshed the page).

I apologize if I was rude with you.

Bob said...

No problem. I can understand if my claims that Haramein's ideas are false upset people who believe in them. I'm very willing to hear if you have reasons to believe that I've said anything that is incorrect.

Vijay.Sharma said...

Bob, sorry I couldn't respond to you earlier. Firstly, let me clarify that I am no physicist and I have absolutely no knowledge of the math involved here. However, I think I am a reasonably logical, knowledgeable, and wise individual (I know I am not being very modest here...actually I dont believe in modesty. I'd rather be humble coz humility helps me learn from others whereas modesty only restricts my expression).

There are primarily the following items that I'd like to try and get you to acknowledge:
a. Calling someone a fraud or deceitful is not a civilized way of "disagreeing strongly". Your disagreement is with Nassim's opinions and his theories. Please don't make it look like a personal thing. Now, I dont think you are trying to assassinate his character or intend to. However, you are portraying yourself as such. It will only result in others losing respect for you.

b. Nassim seems to very clearly present that his theories cannot be proved if you hang on to your current paradigms and view them from that perspective. He is giving us a new paradigm (which incidentally every major learning in humanity's scientific understanding has done too). If you are going to hold on to conventional thinking and evaluate Nassim's theory when he has very clearly stated that hsi theory requires one to stop binding himself with the conventional paradigm. Given this, all your negations of Nassim's theories basically come to zilch.

c. Calling Nassim's work "physics": who are you to decide what is physics and what is not? Just coz you are not ready to open your mind up to understand something new, it doesn't make the new theory any less scientific. Bob, I am what you can term a Professional Innovator. Have you heard of TRIZ? It's a Russian acronym that stands for Theory of Inventive Problem Solving. And being a TRIZ expert for many years I know that it takes more than conventional thinking to invent things. Every new understanding comes from the mind when someone is bold enough to think of something no one thought of before.

If you do not agree with him, it's fine. But it is definitely cheap to get personal against someone just coz he holds a different opinion than you. You are not some kinda protector of science. No one is. Science is what we choose it to be. And whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, many of the world's citizens have understood the limitations of the conventional approaches to science. It is high time a new convention comes in...how long it will stay I don't know but I know for sure that even this new paradigm will have a finite life. That's the only way humanity progresses.

So, to sum up, I request you not to get personal and I request you to limit your rebuttals to the subject material. I am not a subject matter expert and hence I will not be able to debate you on it. Also, just coz I think you have unfairly attacked Nassim, doesn't mean I believe his theories. Oh no, not at all. I have my own views of how existence works just like everyone else has his own views.

Whether you respond to me or not does not matter coz I am not very interested in getting into a discussion about right and wrong from moral and ethical perspective. it's just something for you to think about.

While ridicule and character assassination used to work a few decades ago in putting down new ideas, I am not sure the current generation of people will buy this ridicule crap for too long. I am only in my mid 30s (younger than you) and I am a global citizen who could do with more freedom of expression. The more you call him a crackpot the more you will be driving people away from you and your paradigms. Stop the unnecessary character assassination.

Bob said...

Vijay - so you're here to lecture not discuss? There's a lot of accusations in there, very false accusations, so I'd appreciate it if you'd be prepared to engage in a discussion and at least hear me explain what I actually am doing with this blog. It is not what you think. At all.

If you're not interested in engaging, then I'll not bother responding. As I said in my earlier reply to you. If it's a throw-away opinionated lecture, then there's nothing to take on board - I'll just dismiss it as coming from someone who's misread the situation entirely.

So let me know if you're happy to discuss this further, and if so I'll get back to you later.

Vijay.Sharma said...

I don't have the requisite expertise to engage in a debate with you on the subject matter. If it was a theory I was proposing then I'd engage in a debate with you at least to see where my loophoies are.

So you can ignore my post as an opinionated one. Whether my opinion as a third person makes some sense or not insofar as the tone of your debate this Nassim fellow with. As always, the choice is yours.

Bob said...

Your opinion makes sense. Of course I understand why some people think I have no right to say what I'm saying. But if it's because they're not actually interested in the content or even my intentions in saying it, there's not much I can say.

This blog is not a character assassination. Haramein's physics is fraudulent - he is making things up and selling them. He has no interest in whether or not anything he says bears any resemblance to the observable physical world. And neither, it appears, do you.

You're entitled to your views, but you'll understand that I've written the blog for people who are interested, not for people who are not.

Anonymous said...

Well, instead of bashing Haramein's proton, why don't you enlighten us and define what mass is? Instead of doing that, you have hidden this simple fact that you have no idea what mass is by talking about moon landing. Sure we went to the moon and Sadam had atomic weapons. Darn it must be true cause the "officials" say so!
Dan

Bob said...

"you have hidden this simple fact that you have no idea what mass is by talking about moon landing" - hello?

I'm not here to bash anything - just thought I'd explain why his proton theories are bollocks, for the benefit of people who are capable of thought.

Anonymous said...

"I'm not here to bash anything - just thought I'd explain why his proton theories are bollocks, for the benefit of people who are capable of thought."
Thanks for your answer to the question what is mass.
Dan

Bob said...

Hmm, sarcasm. Dan, my friend, instead of bashing my site, why don't you enlighten us and tell us the cure for cancer? Instead of doing that, you have hidden this simple fact that you have no idea what the cure for cancer is by talking about beetroot.

I don't mind discussing something of the nature of mass with someone who is willing and able to hold a conversation and consider complex ideas from several perspectives, rather than someone on some kind of mindless accusative crusade. Would you like to put your question a little more clearly?

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob,
I think Nassim is probably wrong. I mean, if he is right, then something is fundamentally wrong with our understanding of matter. I now think that that might actually be true and that we don't understand everything well that we think we are. Here is a experimental proof that particle-wave understanding of light is simply wrong. This is what happens when physicist try to prove their theories with math. And yes, I wish Tesla lived a bit longer (and if that gangster Edison didn't burn down his lab), we would have forgoten about Einstein long time ago (he coudn't even figure out math for his theories, his wife Milena did it for him).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-MAW9YmN9s (non-sense of "double-slit experiment).
Roberto

Bob said...

Hi Roberto - sorry to say, but the guy who made that video is one confused cookie, and utterly clueless about quantum mechanics.

It's very easy to look at the classic analogies used in textbooks to introduce people to quantum theory, and mistake them for the theory itself. The internet is teeming with people doing exactly that, and they're passed around by other equally clueless people who don't realise how foolish it is.

And it's really dumb to make a video about how quantum effects don't make sense in terms of classical particle or wave dynamics. Of course they don't make sense in classical terms. If they did, quantum mechanics wouldn't be necessary.

If you want to know anything about the role of intuition and logic in quantum mechanics, the intro of this video is a brilliant place to start - watch the first 7 or 8 minutes.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob,
I am electronic engineer and quantum mechanic is not all that weird to me at all. I use it and apply it every day. By the way I watched all open courseware by Stanford and MIT on physics.
I did not give you I think, or my math predicts kinda argument. I gave you a physical example, an experiment that disproves particle wave theory of light. Your respone was usual, just call people dumb and all that. I could do the same to the people who believe in Darwin's crap, but I will not, cause I don't care if you think you are an animal.

Bob said...

I didn't just call anyone dumb. I said the act of making a video attempting to ridicule a subject he clearly doesn't understand was dumb. It is dumb. It's foolish and immensely arrogant.

What you showed me doesn't disprove anything: it entirely misinterprets it, so it would be fitting if you've met with many similar responses.

Joe said...

Nassim Haramein is a very gifted man.

If anyone here wants to speak against him I am sure you are someone very jealous and most likely believes in the big bang theory and not to mention that jerk off Charles Darwin with the theory of evolution, please don't insult my intelligence!

Bob said...

Joe, I'll say what I say to everyone. I have many, many reasons to claim that he is clueless and his claims are false, and I've taken the time to present them as fully and as clearly as I can.

If you have any reason to dispute anything specifically that I've said, then please share it. I'd be interested in that.

Ania Lian said...

In his defense, or more in defense of thinking, I enjoyed his interview on Coast to Coast AM. I like divergent and different thinking and that's what I heard from him. You may think he is light, what would make one a heavy? Why the biggest philosophers of France taught in small colleges and received recognition late in life if ever? To me, this guy is no different than those who are currently splashing protons in Geneva hoping to get an effect because they believe in bits and pieces. I am amazed that so much money is spent on an idea produced within an institution which is known for being very walled up. I think the guy asked good questions on C2C AM and offered creative responses.
regards
ania

Bob said...

Hi Ania

"To me, this guy is no different than those who are currently splashing protons in Geneva"

The difference is that most of what Haramein says is not true, and he doesn't care.

Some people love stories and ideas and creativity for their own sake, which is fine. If you're one of these people, I respect that and have no quarrel with you at all.

Other people, such as scientists, are more concerned with finding out what nature is actually like, which is why they go to great lengths to find creative ways of investigating it rather than just making it up. I respect these people too.

The problem with Haramein is that he claims to be a scientist, when all he is doing is making stuff up.

I respect good artists, and I respect good photographers. But Haramein is like someone who draws a picture of a lion with six legs and pretends it's a photograph. He gathers followers who don't know what lions are and don't care to find out for themselves, and he attacks anyone who disputes his picture or asks for evidence that lions have six legs.

It's very dishonest... and incredibly silly.

DK said...

Bob...Thanks so much for all this discussion mate. Seems it's opened a Pandora's box in many ways. You've even attracted the odd abusive nutter, so you know you're on the right track!

Anyway, I am one who watched NH's videos and loved them.
Like many people, they simply seemed to resonate with me, though I have enough healthy skepticism to look further and find clear, intelligent and articulate responses such as yours.
I have a point, so bear with me...
I myself clearly 'feel' things and I hangout with many esoteric people, but I do get sick of hearing the crap that comes out of their mouths about what they 'know' about things.
When people ask me about what I do (energetically), the answer is simple, "I don't know". What I do know is that there is something there, that man can still not explain, despite all the best theoretical & mathematical minds in the world working round the clock.
My point here is to ask you a question that relates to an early post by Lucy, where she mentioned the manipulation of gravity. (I apologise if it's already been covered, I have read most of the 361 posts but may have missed some!)

The question is, have you ever heard of a man called Edward Leedskalnin and what is now cheesily called the 'Coral Castle'?
I would love to hear your thoughts on what he achieved, and more importantly, how?

It is easy for historians and physicists to theorise about the how the Pyramids were made, by applying weight of numbers(of people mainly) and leverage techniques, but how one man could manipulate similarly-weighted stones is astonishing.

Have you ever been to the Pyramids Bob, or more importantly, inside?

I spent 2 hours inside the Great Pyramid while it was closed to the public and I can assure you, the engineering is astounding. My gut instinct was 'there is no way these people made this with the methods currently put forward'.

Not only are the tolerances of these massive stones so incredibly tight and accurate, but at no point can you see any evidence of scrape marks or scatching from the maneuvering of such heavy tonnage, that one would expect when moving such weighty stones....using ancient methods. (If you haven't been, I urge you...If you have, again it'd be great to hear your thoughts)

So, Edward Leedskalnin.....how did he do it without some way of manipulating the laws of physics? (as we currently understand them)

Thanks in advance
DK

Bob said...

The Pyramids are astonishing, yes. But that doesn't mean they were built by aliens. Usain Bolt is astonishingly fast, and Einstein was astonishingly brilliant - it doesn't make them aliens either. Some things are just so out there that it's difficult to comprehend them. I prefer to leave it at that - there's nothing wrong with not comprehending how something can be so good. Jumping from that to "it must be aliens" just seems unnecessary.

If it clearly defies the laws of physics, that's another matter. In the case of the pyramids, it doesn't.

Re Leedskalnin: what exactly, specifically, do you think he did that makes people believe that he employed some supernatural force? Again, people can achieve remarkable things that are difficult to comprehend. Human ingenuity is a marvellous thing.

If you don't understand how something is possible, all that means is that you don't understand how it's possible. I think it's a privilege to experience that kind of wonder. Enjoy it!

It doesn't make sense to try to use the fact that you don't understand something as if it is evidence that other people are wrong.

Loek said...

Hi DK and Bob,

I saw on Wikipedia the claim from Wally Wallington that he could recreate Stonehenge using a very simple technique:
http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/
Quite convincing, don't you think so?

Greetings,


Loek

DK said...

I think you've misunderstood me Bob, I am not claiming the Pyramid's were built by Aliens, and I am certainly not trying to use the fact that I don't understand something to prove others wrong.

I'm simply saying that the current theory provided, doesn't account for the accuracy & intricacy involved (Loek's example just above is very interesting, but you could clearly see the concrete was being damaged by the method, and raising then placing blocks on top is a whole different ball game).

Inside the Pyramid you have a 45 deg shaft using 20 tonne blocks, with tolerances of millimetres. Yes, humans are ingenious, yet some of the greatest minds of the modern world are yet to prove conclusively how the Pyramids were made.
The reason I brought Leedskalnin in, was that here was an extremely slight guy who raised a 30 tonne block(among many others) on his own and it wasn't damaged. Again, I am not claiming he used supernatural techniques, though once again, nobody can replicate the feats yet or provide an authentic explanation for how he did it. Ironically, you are jumping to the conclusion that he must have stuck within the bounds of physics laws (as we currently understand them) without having an explanation of how he did it.
Therefore, all possibilities must be left open until it is conclusive (as a scientist once said).
I wasn't trying to have a dig, I genuinely thought you could enlighten me in some way, as I do not have the depth of physics knowledge, and wondered if I was just one of the dreamers, but it seems when physics cannot explain things, the scientific community get tetchy about it.
I will continue to enjoy the mystery, as I doubt science will explain it (satisfactorily) in my lifetime. However, if they do, great, I will marvel at that also.
Cheers.

DK

Bob said...

@Loek - that's brilliant - haven't seen that before :)

@DK - I wasn't jumping to any conclusion, or getting 'tetchy'. I was saying that I don't know, and asking you what specifically he did that made you question the laws of physics.

As you say, the point of science is to keep all possibilities open. And as I said, the fact that you keep all possibilities open doesn't mean they should all be given a similar weight, including the suggestion that the laws of physics as we know them have been transcended. We need other considerations to assess how likely something is.

And in the end it's a matter of trust.

One perspective is that hundreds of thousands of the most brilliant minds in the world have devoted their lives over the centuries to designing and employing the most creative methods imaginable to try to find fundamental flaws and gaps in the laws of physics. If you see someone do something that looks inexplicable, it's probably just very ingeneous, and very unlikely to be any kind of challenge to the laws of physics. Especially if the scientific community aren't taking any particular interest. Of course one never knows, but on balance, it seems pretty unlikely that your guy transcended the laws of physics without anyone proficient in the job of challenging the laws of physics taking any real interest.

The opposite perspective is that science is largely a sham, and is perpetuated by fear and dogma and backslapping, and that the guardians of 'science' will ignore and play down and ridicule anyone who has a novel idea outside of their exclusive circle. If this is true, then sure, it would be very feasible that the 'laws of physics' could be being transcended all over the place, and there would be nobody apart from casual browsers on the internet to spot them.

Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of taking that opposite perspective. And I'm not saying I believe everyone in science to be whiter than white or devoted to the collective quest for truth to an inhuman degree. But personally, I do take the first perspective.

I also believe that the only reason for anyone not to take the first perspective is because they haven't really seen for themselves the astonishing lengths that scientists in every sphere actually go to in order to investigate everything as rigorously and thoroughly as possible.

If someone like Leedskalnin (or Haramein for that matter) ever did something truly remarkable, where there was any evidence at all of gravity being modified or anything fundamental like that, it seems extremely unlikely to me that they either wouldn't notice or wouldn't be interested. They'd be all over it.

But, as I said, that is entirely a matter of trust, and I appreciate that it's a trust not everyone shares.

Helmar Rudolph said...

This is a quote by Nassim from his Youtube trailer.

"Maybe within the confine of the finite structure that you're in is the potential of infinite division; is the potential for infinite amounts of information. You're transferring that information through your boundary, through the infinite of the universe - within yourself. Everything that we see in the universe is just that division of that energy density of the vacuum in various states. The biological resolution is the link between the large and the small. You are the event horizon. Instead of seeing yourself as an insignificant little dot that means nothing to the universe, you start to see yourself as the centre of creation. Everyone else is the centre of their universe as well, and thus we are all equal and we are all one."

Even if this man never says or writes anything else in his life, these lines will - at least to me - stand forever.

Everything ever expressed in figures is bound to be superceeded and thus rendered to the scrap heap of history at some stage in its life, so the only question I'd like to have answered is: What does it mean for me? Nassim did answer that question, for now I can "see" the link between the scientific and the religions / philosophical side.

I care not one iota about the infinitely small or the infinitely large, about the weight of a proton or the weight of this website. All I care about is that those words that Nassim spoke helped me understand that I am powerful beyond measure. In fact, we all are, and it's high time that THIS is being taught and spread around the globe.

Enjoy and prosper!

Bob said...

Hi Helmar

If the idea of you being powerful beyond measure makes you feel better and inspires you to live a better life, then that's fine by me, go right ahead. We're all entitled to take whatever faith we choose.

My article is about something else - it's about the way he misleads people into believing that he's presenting science, the way he pretends to be something that he is not, the way he lies about his research and his understanding, and the way he relies on and encourages scientific illiteracy and an unquestioning attitude among his followers. If those don't matter to you, then you're free to support his work as you wish.

All I'd say is don't expect too many others to follow suit. There are many inspiring people out there. Why not find an honest one instead?

Anonymous said...

Thank you Bob for your incisive look at Haramein. Also, your patience and thoroughness in dealing with Haramein supporters is most admirable. Again, thank you.
I first encountered Haramein's OPINIONS when I woke up one morning to find my brother (age 27) watching haramein videos. They sounded suspicious to me, and I was surprised at my brothers willingness to believe (even defend) Haramein's claims. He just recently completed his M.A. (master's degree in Canada) in Critical Theory and Philosophy, which is why I was particularly bothered to find a staunch academic like my brother believing (or wanting to believe) Haramein's claims.

After I spoke with him about Haramein, he told me (to my relief) that I had overestimated the amount which he believes Haramein's views.

I thank you for offering some clear insights into this, and I am appalled that people can criticize what you have done. I cannot wrap my head around how one could think testing hypotheses and being able to reproduce results is a bad thing.

The presumption that as a child he had special knowledge is a problem. clearly he was not able to discuss, disprove or test his ideas at age 9 (at least objectively anyway). Haramein is still that child, ignorant and unwilling to learn. Children can be so stubborn : )

Anonymous said...

Furthermore, i hope you do not get jaded by the comments and defence of Haramein. Don't worry, the only people searching (and therefore defending Haramein), are his minions. Nobody with any thinking ability really knows who this is and ignore his claims, or simply laugh and turn it off.
Its a shame you have had to put any energy into the rubbish of his claims, but I thank you for doing it. It is commendable.
We need to simply end the subject, because this could go on forever. The more time we dedicate to disproving him, the more fame he grows and the more his flock of sheep feel the need to defend him.

Bob said...

Thanks, Anonymous!

Yes, the archetype of the magic child can have quite an effect on people. It's a classic one to pull out of the toolbag when you want people to mistrust their own doubts and fall for the story. I should try it with my students! :D

Don't worry, I'm not feeling jaded - I quite like these guys. This is an obscure anonymous old blog that only really gets traffic from people searching for information on Haramein. I have the stats: the traffic is 100% one-way.

The fact is, for whatever reason, there are real people out there who genuinely find Haramein convincing in some way, and sometimes what they're discussing is right at the heart of their perspective on the universe and their efforts to understand it.

Sometimes. There are lines, of course.

I feel kinda honoured when someone comes to discuss what they believe. I respect that. It's good to try to communicate with that side of a human being, even if objectively what they're saying doesn't seem to add up, and even if what I'm saying may well have no effect on them at all. But you never know.

Anonymous said...

I also quite like how, in NH's rebuttal to your criticisms, he cites Wikipedia AND Urban Dictionary. I think it's safe to say that we know where he gets his information...
Thats like me saying that I can prove chicken is tasty because I can show you a Boston Pizza menu that calls it Tasty chicken.

On another note, I recall from an introductory Philosophy course I took in University which explained Ockham's Razor, basically that the simplest conclusion or solution is best. Four-hour, off-topic ramblings which lead nowhere is not a simple or concise way to explain one's beliefs.

Kalina said...

Bob wrote:
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'.

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.


Thank you Bob for your work. You express very well my concerns regarding Nassim. I am not a physicist but after watching several of his videos my intuition was screaming out loud. After watching his presentation about the Bible and his theory that it was the technology that helped Moses to cross Red Sea I was laughing rolling on the floor. Anyway, I went through the pain of reading discussion of physicists who analyzed his theory and showed absurdity of it. But I was shocked by the response of many people on the forum who totally suspended their mental activity and critical thinking but in a parrot way repeated that his theory resonated with them. LOL! I was laughing reading some of response here where people talked about thinking out of the box. Thinking out of the box only applies to the first stage of the creative process. The second stage requires critical and rational thinking that must be based in science. I guess some people feel happy to stop using their minds. It is scary, isn’t it?

Best regards,

Martin Parnell said...

Bob, Thank you very much for your very detailed and concise refutations of NH's claims. Nassim was brought to my attention only recently.

I must say that exponents of HN's claims are out their in the world trying to teach that science can be founded on belief. I have since watched some NH videos and i must say you are being very gentlemanly, and courteous, and extending such generosity, to say he is eloquent, and engaging, and a good talker. {I may have lost the correct adjectives you used to politely describe his demeanour, as I have read such a lot of your blog, and the many responses, great stuff may I say!}

I personally find him akin in rhetoric to every single psudoscientist out there i have ever met. On a personal level I find this sort of character is terribly ineloquent, conceited, and boring. He talks science, without talking about it.

You are absolutely right on calling this man out for a fraud.

I am amazed at how people ignore the disingenuous way he states his qualification and the university, as if there is a link in academic excellence of peer review, and a universities respect within the scientific and indeed wider community, and his work.
This is quite obviously, not a co incidence, it is a blatant and disingenuous adjoining of the university’s position of respect, and his wild claims. You succinctly pointed all this out from the off.

This should have been enough for people to go out and find for themselves if what he has sad is true. In a court of law, it would cast reasonable doubt. On a practical level…Need I say…?...yes because people are still arguing with you about their points of view…

Practical real world Hypothosis which shows NH is full of shit and not representing normal people as he claims
In the real world, this will ring true….If I come to your house with long hair, and claim to be a policeman and a judge, and there is a new law which makes all home ownership laws null and void. And then I go on to claim that now the new law, one I thought on a bus as a kid, is that ownership of property now is a result of who has the longest hair. There are immediately questions that spring to mind, to any logical person.

1: Who the hell are you?
2: Is this new law, really a law?

After this come other questions…. If it is a new law, does it work as a law?
Who decided you would be making the new law up?
Who agreed to this new law?
Who disagrees with this new law?
And Hey is it surprising you have long hair and you get to benefit from this law financially?

All this is normal observable everyday reasoning, which NH claims to be supporting, in some kind of twisted way as an opposition, to the ‘scientific community’

Apply the above to NH’s claims.

You have explained the details from a scientific point of view, an his supporters still refute this, so I wanted to try from a none scientific, but a real life perspective to show he does not represent a normal persons view to intelligent thinking about the universe.

I think I have just demonstrated that using simple logic, he fails.

Keep up the good work. It is as you say,’not that we can convince everyone he is a fraud’, but every person we do make realise that he is a fraud, we maybe save a kid {maybe these people will have children?} from being brought up with no cognitive abilities for dissemination between logic thought against belief, and pure conjecture.
Sorry if i re-iterated at any point, Martin.

Anonymous said...

I think N.H. made a big mistake by responding to your blog. The act itself was unprofessional (Why would such a great and brilliant scientist feel the need to validate his claims to a lowly blogger?). Furthermore, the content of his response was unprofessional. Name calling, poor source material, and the responses excessive length show us a petty individual who cannot accept criticism. Its time this alleged child genius grows up.

Anonymous said...

After reading so many of these responses and responses to those... It seems to me that those who don't support Nassim's theory do not fully understand key components of it. It's like you're not really hearing what he has to say, just want you want to hear. Another thing I would like to point out is that he has a massive amount of material on the web which most of is off the top of his head. He is bound to make mistakes and say things he shouldn't have but overall I think he had some good points and quite basically he makes alot of sense... His idea is radically different that all of mainstream science. If you are expecting air tight theories and equations you are bound for disappointment. Our science of today has left problems questions unanswered. Recently, CERN has been trying to prove our latest and greatest theories but nothing has been found yet. Maybe it's time to look into some other ideas and stop holding the old as undeniable truth.

Anonymous said...

I hope the commenter "Guillermo" from the top of the page realizes that there is, in fact, no such place as "Oxford University".

Anonymous said...

I got as far as this laughable statement:

"Science loves having theories overturned."

Does that include the thousands of scientists that have had their careers crushed or, failing that, have been murdered for proposing ideas that are outside the rigid, orthodox, religious-like cult of science?

Bob said...

Thanks for the supportive comments, folks - I appreciate it. :)

Re 'Anonymous' 5th Aug: - "It seems to me that those who don't support Nassim's theory do not fully understand key components of it." - his theory has been entirely ripped apart, my friend. It's dead. I've been on this blog for over a year asking people to point to and explain one thing in my criticisms of his theory which is incorrect, or failing that one thing that you think constitutes reasoning or evidence in favour of any idea that Haramein has ever introduced, and all I get in response is vague empty claims like the ones you're making.

Say something specific. If there's something that I don't understand, explain it. Or tell me the implications of it and why you think it's more than just a fairy tale that you happen to like. If you have a point to make, I'd like you to make it.

Re 'Anonymous' 7th Aug: - "there is, in fact, no such place as Oxford University" - really? It was there last time I looked. What happened?

Re 'Anonymous' 8th Aug: - er, yeah, I was wondering why technology had been stagnant over the last 2000 years, while all those brilliant scientists were being murdered in the name of science. You must be right. (It's especially nice to have comments from other planets - thank you for taking the time)

Helmar said...

Hi Bob,

If the idea of you being powerful beyond measure makes you feel better and inspires you to live a better life, then that's fine by me, go right ahead. We're all entitled to take whatever faith we choose.

Rather powerful beyond measure than the opposite, not? Although duality ceases to exist at some stage and all becomes one - a black hole, perhaps. ;)

My article is about something else - it's about the way he misleads people into believing that he's presenting science...

In my eyes he does nothing else than any other scientist with a theory. He researches, he opens his ideas to the public, he tries to validate or otherwise discards his ideas, and in the end he's consciousness just like you and me.

Have you perhaps thought about the "idea" that you might just as well be misleading others with the slice of consciousness that you have selected for yourself? Many folks have asked you pertinent questions, but so far I - being a just Libran - have not seen your answers. You have a historic chance to disprove Nassim, or in fact, set up a new theory opposite to his, which would put you on the same level as him, because you could be disproven in due course just as easily. That's the course of life.

Not ever scientist was right. Things change. The more we investigate and research and theorize, the more we push the boundaries of consciousness. And as I said, if he says nothing else than what I quoted, that will have been enough for me.

the way he pretends to be something that he is not, the way he lies about his research and his understanding, and the way he relies on and encourages scientific illiteracy and an unquestioning attitude among his followers.

Does he pretend or do others read that into it. Whose consciousness is it? His or yours? How can someone lie about his understanding? He either has it or not.

The "unquestioning followers" somehow resonate with what he says, and it is quite possible that something much larger emerges from that than from any other researcher or scientist. (Remember that you can be a scientist and still be wrong on another level!)

If those don't matter to you, then you're free to support his work as you wish.

The details of his work are way beyond my scope - and I believe yours, too, because otherwise you would focus on that rather than allegations and name-calling. There is, however, a level of intelligence within me that I can't possibly fathom that resonates with parts of what he says on a very high level.

Where I do think he is not 100% right is when he says that he believes geometry to be the key to universal forces. At a particular level he is right. He fails, however, to see that even geometry is a product of consciousness, more accurately: our consciousness.

All I'd say is don't expect too many others to follow suit. There are many inspiring people out there. Why not find an honest one instead?

If I were you I would be careful with words like "dishonesty". He may be as wrong just as so many others had their theories or - at the time - solid knowledge overturned by further research.

One thing I know for sure though: what you are doing is destructive. It isn't anywhere near constructive criticism or a dealing with the matter eye-to-eye. You cannot escape the law of cause and effect, for what you send out returns to you via the law of attraction, so be very careful as to the energies you are sending out, for they will bite you in the butt one day. Understanding often only comes after the fact, but you should be smart enough to differentiate whether this "bob-a-thon" is loving, caring and supportive, or just meant to take a man down, rather than help him out from his apparently dis-illumed state. That would be a friend and a real man's thing to do.

Peace and blessings,

Helmar

Bob said...

Hi Helmar.

"In my eyes he does nothing else than any other scientist with a theory." - of course. This appears to be the case for a lot of people. All of whom don't know what science is, and have no interest in finding out.

If you didn't know what wine was, a salesman could sell you blackcurrant juice and tell you it was wine. Would that be fraud? Of course it would.

If your friend informed you of this, would you feel that was unfair on the salesman?

I'm not trying to take Haramein down, as I've said many times already. I've discussed his theories, not his character, except insofar as to note that his integrity is deeply compromised by his willingness to profit by misleading his followers. Which it is.

If he wants to sell his silly stories and people want to drink them up, that's fine by me. I've presented what I understand, and you may or may not find that helpful.

If you choose to believe that blackcurrant juice is wine because the salesman says it is, despite not knowing what wine is or having any interest in finding out, then you're a fool. If your friends knew it was a fraud, I hope they wouldn't feel it was 'loving, caring and supportive' to deliberately withhold what they knew.

There are many sites that can help you test a claim that purports to be science, if you're interested, but this very simple list is the classic.

Bob said...

On the means of distinguishing pseudoscience from science, this Wikipedia list may be more helpful and easier to read than the one I linked to above.

If that's too much, just use this. Most of these ten simple points describe Haramein pretty well.

Anonymous said...

this guy HELMAR it is another charlatan

d.. said...

Oh no, he just doesn't get it, as many others who write here without even reading Bob's explanations.
It stroke me as a surprise, however, how he helped us know his horoscope (so what, Helmar???)
I can't believe there's still people believing in astrology. Ever heard about Bertram Forer, guys?

Royboy said...

Bobmeister - I gotta say I'm starting to feel like I'm inside a black hole - came to this whole subuniverse a couple days ago via an accolade for N Haramein by an artist that I appreciate & then an inquiring google search and then … yikes!!!

now I can't seem to get out of it. some attractant force seems to keep pulling me back into this fractal-like compounding of diverse(!) postings on a variety of sites (most recently ended up on abovetopsecret.com).

40 years ago, I started my undergraduate college life with the plan to triple major in math, physics, & astronomy. if I had kept up with that then & since I might be able to follow the technical points on this one. I didn't stay on that road, though, and so can't say I'm with you on the math/physics front other than wistfully wishfully.

anyway, I do want to say that the considerable amount I've read and scanned leads me to want to offer you my absolute highest congratulations on your clarity of thinking & language, your awareness of distinction between contesting facts & personal attacks, and your epic patience in responding with thoughtful detailed clarity to some pretty unrigorous thoughts & sometimes assaults. in my estimation these are no small accomplishments & I'm hugely impressed.

you must have a lot of free time on your hands! (though considering the amount I've spent over the past couple days and the fact that I'm looking at a year or two of postings at one time - that observation might be better addressed to the mirror).

so, I'm gonna try to find somewhere to insert this, try to extricate myself at least temporarily (perhaps a photon bump would be enough to destabilize the paralyzing balance of forces?) and get off to other priorities.

sometime soon I'll try to get back and investigate some of your other interests here ...

thank you!

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob and all,

I recently came across NH, and although I've got fascinated by his theories, I got suspicious right away: he didn't sound like a real scientist, and surprise surprise - he isn't!
He is a good storyteller, and I give him credit for that.
I really wanted to make some comments on few discussions, which have some really interesting points, but there are so many of them that I don't have the time to do that. I'll just say the most important thing I had to say: please people, don't even compare a genius like Nikola Tesla to someone like NH! Thank you.
I apologise if I did not read this blog to the end (I only read the first 200 messages). Thank you for your work (everybody's work, and special thanks to Bob for organising all this) and for saving me from a big loss of "space-time" watching his videos!

R

phishtube said...

Wait a minute... I found NH while researching the accomplished physicist Elizabeth Rauscher Ph.D. He co-authored a paper with Elizabeth, titled "The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein's Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory" was published in the July 2005 Noetic Journal CD Rom, followed by the printed book version, ISSN# 1528-3739.. There is no way someone with the published papers and credentials she has would risk her reputation on a nutter, no? Surely there must be some substance to what he is proposing. Why would she get involved with a quack? Something doesn't seem right. Maybe all this information is being suppressed like the response SETI got from intelligent beings in outer space.

Bob said...

Hi Royboy and "R"! Thanks for your support :)


Hi phishtube - re Elizabeth Rauscher: I've been trying not to get sucked into speculations on the motivations of specific people connected with Haramein. Who knows what she was thinking. Whatever it is, it's pretty tangential to the fact that Haramein's physics is bullshit, which is something that can be discussed without reference to any selectively perceived figures of authority.

But I may as well try to say a few words, because she does keep cropping up in comments here.

You say "There is no way someone with the published papers and credentials she has would risk her reputation on a nutter" - Unfortunately this is not as uncommon as you might think.

Goldacre's First Law of Bullshit Dynamics states that "There is no imaginable proposition so absurd that you cannot find at least one person, somewhere in the world, with a PhD or professional post, who is happy to endorse it." The web is teeming with examples, as you must be aware.

It's true that Rauscher did some real science in the 60s and 70s, and perhaps later.

I don't know her reasons for allowing her name to be associated with this guy recently. You have to admit it's getting her a whole load more publicity than your average ageing physicist. And as Haramein has many thousands of fascinated followers, and all his sites take you to sales of dvds, courses and pay-walled members areas, it's surely clear from the massive internet presence of his publicity machine that there's a lot of money in this.

Rauscher calls herself a "World-Renowned Physicist" on her website - the kind of crude self-endorsement you'd expect to see from psychics or faith healers, not serious scientists.

You might want to check out what she's been involved in during the last decade or two, and how she was seen in the academic world before she got involved with Haramein. Have a dig around and consider whether what you see looks like the work of someone who cares about her academic reputation.

As for Haramein - if he was a nutter, would he bend over backwards to have someone with Rauscher's CV appearing to endorse his work? Of course he would.

One thing I've never seen is Rauscher actually saying anything or writing anything that specifically endorses anything that Haramein says in his dvds or crazy talks. Not a thing. I'd be interested if you can find examples of anything she's actually says where she specifically discusses any of the ideas of Haramein's.

It seems he's just managed to get her name on his site, and to get his name on a few entirely unpublishable papers of hers. (By which I mean unpublishable by any journal with a policy of checking that a paper makes sense before publishing it.)

You're right to point out that it would be very strange if a reputable scientist, currently active and respected in her field, chose to endorse the work of a pretentious fool like Haramein. I think with a little investigation you'll agree that it's pretty clear that no such thing has happened here.

Anonymous said...

Hi Im Mari

Just wanted to say this is a great blog I do applaud your patience and to me open and humble attitude. I was however disappointed, I wanted NH to be right! dag nammit another one and it sounded so plausible!

i know basically naff all about physics, relegated that to the dropped subject bin at school as THE most boring subject I ever encountered, I am now quite interested in astronomy, quantum mechanics and the like. From my armchair you understand.

I think it a great great shame that so many of these wonderful topics were so shrouded in mind-numbingly excruciating tedium that i never felt to study them and am now pray to all manner of charlatans and can really only engage with physics if it is on BBC horizon. (i mean Jeez where does one start?) and even then somebody will always come along and tell you they got it wrong too and what do you know if the mainstream media dont have vested interests in telling you what to believe as well!

Without beginning my education again (I am part way through an occupational psychology MSc) from scratch and devoting what i have left of my life to cosmology, much of which would no doubt bore me to tears; doing my own research (as hell even teachers are just repeating what they have been taught) I can never hope to know who is right (or at least sound) and who is not. I guess i have to go with what moves me and makes sense to my reality tunnel, its the best i have.

NH was a delight to listen to, soaked up all 8 hours in one sitting. However something didnt sit right, as i know a bit about peer reviewed journals and the not so highly thought of ones like in my field "harvard business review" the mention of this obscure journal of his did stand out. made me go hummmmmmm.

the comet, (how can a comet's tail appear in front of the trajectory of the comet?) the 11 year solar cycle (must look this up again as i thought it was 19? anyway...) certain things jarred with what i know (not that that is right!) so in went his name into google. (primarily because i was so moved and wanted to see if he stood up)

as much as i loved the idea that gravity was in fact a contracting balance to the expanding universe and the perfect symmetry involved in his modified isotropic vector metric (i took notes and made diagrams!!) i felt the need for a little verification. I also felt it weakened his case by bringing in just about every conspiratorial theory going (bar fluoride and aspartame) but none the less it was clear he was of the "truther" ilk or at least pitching his theories to the truther community and hey i'm a truther, its how i found his link - i think the world's in a bloody mess and the many suffer in ignorance for the benefit and power of the few, I suspect that those who fund science have a vested interest in securing certain results therefor employ researchers of a certain persuasion, i am also pretty sure there are pure scientists out there but that Galileo himself pushed his theories through not because he was right so much as he was a good presenter. the philosophy of science is not as linear as one would think.

Aliens, crop circles, the ark of the covenant none of it would surprise me if true or false. because i am of this community i long since learned to "truther" the "truthers" but fence sitting really hurts your butt i can tell you.

to me the greatest flaw in the truther community is the clinging to gurus as gods and leaving no room for healthy debate. tut tut. and kerching!

I wonder can you save my beloved fractals here? When first seeing the Mandelbrot set I thought wow that is the answer to the universe, which is why i found NH so compelling, this in particular was what i took from the presentation; the infinite and finite boundary conditions (how the dual forces we see can exist in unity) was so elegantly explained, it was like a light went on. i dont know about black holes and blah blah but fractals that made sense.

(wont post so think i may need to do it in 2...hope this works!)

Anonymous said...

cont...(jee didnt think it was so long!)

perhaps the greatest shame is that physics has a disturbing lack of contemporary publicity, I have found flaws, to my intuitive mind at least, in brain Cox and contradictions in horizon documentaries and little means to vindicate or discard my thougths on it. If physics and science really want to put a stop to snake oil salesmen (and for all i know NH is right) it needs to fill a gap in the market and sell itself a little more plainly and add a tad of sizzle.

so this is how i see it in the end. the fractal universe makes sense to me, and i think NH is like myself one who has investigated conspiracies like a large sector of the public currently all asking if they have not been utterly duped for dollar bills and power and if everything we know and have been taught is really right.

I think his ideas of the fractal structure of the vacuum is plausible (i know nothing) but damn it sounds it. only last night i was asking myself how in the hell physicists, on finding that planets in galaxies actually do not slow down as thought at the aphelion and would therefore have to be of greater mass than predicted, just make up dark matter (in everything), dark energy and then dark flow. parsimony seems to be breaking down. maybe his math is wrong and his physics terrible but maybe there's an idea that warrant's a little investigation, baby and bathwater springs to mind? is there nothing to be salvaged?

best
M

Bob said...

(part 1 of 3!)

Hi Mari, and thanks for your comments - it's great to hear from someone wrestling with the nature of reality, being self-aware and thoughtful.

I think you've summed up very well how many people feel about physics. It can be a frustrating subject to try to grasp from the outside, as a non-physicist. It's filled with intuitively bizarre and abstract ideas, but it's somehow supposed to represent the nature of reality, but it's not always clear why.

There's tons and tons I'd love to say in response. I'll be barely able to scratch the surface here… but I can't resist diving in…

I think you're right - physics does need extra publicity. In some ways it's got a far higher profile now than it has in a very long time, and that's great. Popular programs like Horizon and Brian Cox do a lot to instill a sense of wonder, and to inspire people to go out and explore further.

One of the drawbacks is that really, all they're doing is telling stories, and trying to make them exciting stories. Either descriptively ("here's how the universe works") or historically ("here's how these people gradually uncovered the laws of nature we know today"), it's all stories. But physics isn't stories.

I'd like to see more people explaining the difference.

The problem with presenting physics as exciting stories is that other people (like Haramein) can also tell exciting stories, perhaps using some of the same words, and then they appear to be physicists.

When people say something "resonates" with them, or "makes sense" to them, or "feels" right or seems like common sense or "intuitively" fits with how they see the world - none of that is physics. Physics has nothing at to do with how anybody feels about it, or how compelling it is.

If what you're looking for is any of those things, then it might be that physics isn't what you're truly interested in.

I'll try to explain what I mean - please bear with me.

I'm not someone who goes along with the view that facts are worthwhile and meaningful but stories are fluffy and empty. I know some scientists who do hold that view, and I think they're a bit prejudiced, perhaps lacking in a certain kind of imagination.

If someone doesn't have the kind of imagination to see the value and power of myth and spirituality and evocation and stories (and of course art, music, and all the rest!), then that is reasonable - after all, human beings are a diverse bunch. What I find saddening is if they also don't have the imagination (or don't want to have the imagination - because I think this is a matter of choice) to see that other people might be able to recognise things that they don't.

If there's one thing we can all be sure of it's that other people recognise and understand and appreciate things that we don't. (This is something I believe we could all benefit from reflecting on before we're tempted to dismiss anything.)

Perhaps what you want is a particular type of fractal universe. I don't know. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I know a few great people who just get hooked on a particular way of seeing the world and devote years to creating art or fiction or music from that. Are they "wrong" in some way? Are they obsessed with something "fake"? Of course not. They're following what they love.

Bob said...

(part 2 of 3)

Imagine someone who makes art out of fractals.

If what really mattered to them was to grasp the facts, the intricate logical scientific details of the universe, surely they'd go and do that instead. If they really wanted to know in which way the universe exhibited fractal behaviour, in a strictly factually accurate way, they'd set about finding out.

They'd soon realise that a fractal is a purely mathematical concept, and that to understand what's behind it all they'd have to get to grips with some extremely weighty abstract ideas. If the prospect of that felt to them like years of hitting their head against a desk and feeling awful, they'd have two choices: they could do what Bill Bryson did, which was to ask as many experts as possible until he felt he had the factual story, or they could go back to being creative with the ideas that they already had. Or somewhere in between.

Do you see what I mean?

Physics is the process of getting right under the surface, and asking the question "but why does it have to be like that?" Or "if we look at it this way, what would that imply about what we can observe?" Or - most importantly - "if we do this, what do we actually observe?"

The process of asking and trying to honestly answer these questions might be astonishingly creative and eye-opening and exciting! Or it might not.

When we look deeply and honestly and factually at things, they often aren't what we expect, or what we want, or what we even think is possible. Imagine how the first people to discover a duck-billed platypus felt. It's like nature saying "haha! you weren't expecting that!"

A lot of physics probably looks "wrong" to most people. It will probably "jar with how you feel" a lot of the time. This is to be expected.

Physics isn't something that is there to help anyone make sense of their lives. This is important, I think. Sure, if you're the kind of person that has to know exactly how the universe works in all its precise and rigorous details, then it will help you with that. But not everyone is like this. If you're like the majority of people, if you want to make sense of your life, especially your inner life, you probably need a good helping of myth.

For some people - but not everyone - the challenge, the discovery, the investigation of every tiny logical corner, makes physics supremely exciting. For great physicists, who were just driven to find out, it was worth all the frustration when things didn't fit together, worth the struggle to understand, worth the isolation when hardly anyone you know really has a clue what you're devoting your life to.

For others, none of it matters at all. Who cares what the moon is made of? It could be made of cheese, what does it have to do with anything relevant?

But most of us are somewhere in the middle. We want the story, we want it to be a good story, but we also want it to be the real story. And the frustration comes because we're asking for two different things at the same time.

Bob said...

(part 3 of 3)

Physicists are lucky in one way, perhaps, because for them, the real story is the best story. They'll do anything they can to get at the factual truth. And they have no qualms at all about recognising when their favourite pretty idea is incorrect, strangling it and unceremoniously dumping it. Because physics is about letting go of stories and trying to look nature square in the face. It's the attempt to question everything to destruction, so that whatever's left standing cannot be denied.

The point is that behind the stories presented by reputable physicists are decades or centuries of rigorous and devoted investigation by hundreds or thousands of brilliant people, most of whom devoted their entire working life to checking, questioning, nit-picking and digging into every conceivable corner.

Whereas the stories presented by people like Haramein are things he's vaguely heard about or simply made up.

The difference is the unfathomable amount of work that lies behind real science. Almost anything you could think of that could be done to check or attempt to disprove any of it has been thought of and, where possible, done. If you were to investigate, you'd get answers. If you wanted to go beneath the suface, you could. And down and down and down and down. It's all there.

If you look behind what Haramein says, in factual terms it's paper thin, and if you try to do anything with it, it disintegrates in your hand.

The difference is not the story, it's what's beneath and behind it, and what happens when you question it.

So physics isn't stories, stories aren't physics. But both are important and valuable. Every one of us will explore to as much depth as we choose, and fill the gaps with stories to help us make sense of our lives and the universe.

When you ask "is there nothing to be salvaged"…. I think the whole world is still there. If you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, don't throw it out. Think of the artist doing creative work with fractals without really knowing what they are. Is that an unfulfilling life? Absolutely not!

So find a seat on the factual-mythical continuum, and if you're happy there, what's not to like? When you feel the need to know the facts, you can get up and take a walk in that direction. If you find you can't walk as far as you'd like to, you can ask someone you trust to go on your behalf. None of it need be closed to you.

So you might be wondering why I had such a problem with Haramein. The difference is that he pretends to be at the factual rigorous end, but it's a sham. And for some people, getting at the truth is something very meaningful - it might seem harmless, but it really matters to some people. People are putting their trust in him, and he abuses that trust for his own profit.

Our fractal artist doesn't do any of that. He practices, genuinely, what he loves. He's not misleading anyone because he knows what he doesn't know, and he's honest about it. He's internalising and giving from his creativity. It's very different. He's doing something that I doubt Haramein will ever be capable of.

And fractals are very much alive and well. They're a very deep and significant aspect of the universe. Haramein doesn't know what they are, so if you want anything factual about them, he's not the person to listen to. Jim Al-Khalili did an excellent program on them a few years ago, which was recently shown again on the BBC, if you want to explore the factual story. Are they "the answer to the universe"? No. Are they part of the answer? Definitely.

Bob said...

(part 4 of 3) (oops)

I can say more about dark matter and so on if you're interested. It's not made-up, by the way! I've already said a few things in other comments, for example here and here, so I'll leave you with those.

I hope some of that addresses some of what you've written! :-)

Anonymous said...

Nuff Said...

I watched NH,s video (Black Whole), it was the first I had heard of him. I enjoyed it, and the simplistic presentation. After watching it I thought to myself 'what does the scientific community think of this?' and did a Google on it.
Lo and behold I came to this site and started reading. I then started reading the comments and your replies. The same ole same ole responses all the time. I got sick of them, so I thought I had better check out NH's response to your blog. Now I might say at this point that you have a far better understanding of physics than I do, and NH accredited you with a good mind as well.
However after reading your blog and his response, he wins hands down.
The moderator actually invites you to submit constructively to that site or keep your trap shut. Now I don't know whether you have tried to submit more to his site and they've blocked you, or you haven't bothered.
But as he says, you're the one hiding behind anonyminity not him. So why don't you simply come out of hiding, and have a decent literary scrap with him if you're so sure you're right.

Bob said...

Hmm. Interesting conclusion! Let's look at that.

First of all, you say "I don't know whether you have tried to submit more to his site and they've blocked you"

Yes, of course I did, and all further attempts were blocked.

I responded the same day, not with any malicious or vindictive comment, but with a very straightforward demonstration of a major flaw in the physics of one of the arguments he'd used against one of my criticisms (which I later wrote up here)

If the moderator's definition of "constructive" was something that agrees with Haramein's theories and can be used to back them up, then no, it wasn't constructive by that definition. Would you go along with that definition?

I prefer to think of "constructive" as meaning something which helps get closer to the truth. If there are major flaws in an argument using physics, I think the constructive thing to do is reveal them and look more closely at them, not ignore them.

I'll let you choose which meaning of the word you prefer. Have a think.

I also commented on his Facebook group, and was met with derision from his fans whenever I expressed any disagreement or sought to question anything. I think I tried pretty hard to make "constructive" (by my definition of genuinely truth-seeking) comments. I said nothing unpleasant or personal. But where I could see a reason to disagree, I gave it; and where someone made a clearly untrue comment about what I'd said, I disagreed with them too.

I've had some direct conversations with him on his Facebook page. Whenever I posted anything that showed any clear evidence as to why he was wrong, it was immediately deleted.

Before long I was blocked entirely from the site. I tried again with a different name, being extremely careful to be as nice as possible, but still asking tricky questions… and I was eventually blocked again.

I found it very frustrating, and decided it wasn't worth the effort to try to communicate any further.

I've made it quite clear that I'd be very happy to discuss his ideas with him online in public, in some forum where he doesn't have censorial control. He has always avoided such a debate, and always will.

What he is concerned with is ensuring that his ideas are presented positively on his site.

Because he's not a scientist, he's a salesman.

Bob said...

Here's a little game you can play, which doesn't require any expertise in physics at all.

(I'm assuming that you're actually interested in finding things out, rather than someone who simply prefers their own exisiting opinions. Is that correct?)

I'd strongly encourage you to do this. I tried it once, and the result was fascinating.

Haramein occasionally refers to some science which he claims supports his theories. I mean real scientists, and reputable work published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Perhaps it'll be some news item he's posted on Facebook, perhaps some paper or website he's referred to in his "Letter to Bobathon" or his "Schwarzschild Manifesto". Presumably he believes the scientists involved have some insight into reality, and some experience in working directly with the subject he's talking about, otherwise he wouldn't quote their work.

Here's the game:

Make a list of a few scientists whose work Haramein has used in this way. Send this list of names to Haramein, or better still, post it in a public place such as here.

Ask Haramein if he has contacted any of these scientists to see what they think of his ideas, and whether they believe their work supports his theories.

Offer to contact them yourself, and ask them for their opinions. Ask Haramein if he would commit to having their views of his work quoted on his Facebook page or on his blog.

See how he responds.

I think it's a reasonable request - would you agree? Science is about collaboration, after all. Open communication and being open to the perspectives of other scientists is very important.

If he ignores you, do keep asking. Eventually you'll either receive a negative response (which I'd encourage you to question, if you were interested to know why that was a bad idea), or a positive response (I'd be surprised!), or - more likely - you'll be attacked by his fans or even by him, and eventually blocked.

If you get a positive response, all you need to do is write to the scientists on your list and get their opinion. Emails or phone numbers are easy to find. Some will respond. They may not wish for you to quote them - you should respect that. But contact them, point them to Haramein's work and his use of their work, and see what they think.

When you have a collection of opinions from the scientists Haramein apparently looks up to, you could post it on his site for the world to see. It would be an interesting little investigation, don't you think?

Do you believe that it's ok for Haramein to dismiss the opinion of every scientist whose work he claims supports his own? Because he has always done precisely that.

My prediction is that if you contacted every single one of the peer-reviewed scientists whose work Haramein has quoted, many will avoid responding (because after all, Haramein's 'scientific' ideas are all fake, so it's not really of interest), but of those that do, all will agree that he's misusing their work, and that he is clueless. Every last one. With luck, some may give you very clear reasons why he is wrong.

But the most important thing is that he knows that perfectly well. He knows his work is seen as a sham by everyone in science. Which is why he would never permit any such opinions or reasons to appear on his site, even from the very scientists whose work he pretends to agree with.

I'll let you have a play with those ideas, and figure out whether it means anything to you.

Anonymous said...

Nuff Said

First of all thanks for your reply. Particularly the clarification of the posting issue, which if true (of which I have no doubts) seems rather childish (of him). Although, I can see a point at which nobody would like another person continually debunking one's work (regardless of whether it's true or not) on one's own website. Particularly if one believes one's work is correct.
Nevertheless, point taken.

On another point (Your game)...
In daily life, I am a programmer. On countless occasions when I have been stuck with a problem, I have referred to my peers via various forums for answers, and in return, I have submitted answers to other's problems.
In programming, and as I assume in physics, the answer (to the problem, not the question) has to be correct otherwise the coding will not work.
On occasions I have received numerous answers all of which have different coding, but ultimately have reached the same conclusion, and work. There was one occasion that I had worked for a couple of hours on a piece of code that I submitted. It was about 50 lines long. At almost the same time I submitted, another user posted an answer that was half the size of mine, and far more eloquent. Of course I was pissed, but I had to take my hat off to the guy. Now, my answer wasn't wrong, but his coding was better than mine.
There have also been times when I have adapted another person's code to my own end, and I know other people have done the same with mine.

My point being...

Your game has fundamental flaws, in which a person may say in private, 'that person has outdone me' but not acknowledge it in public. Or, have his (in my example) code referred to or even used and added to, to create another piece of code, adding more importance to the initial piece of code.
In my opinion, both of the above are not incorrect.

Another scenario of course, is if the answer(s) is/are only partially correct. I can hear your analytical mind gasping at this thought. But it does happen, we see it quite often in the way Web Browsers interpret code. Ha, interpretation raises even more questions doesn't it ( as in NH's references to old civilisations etc.), but it is simply a matter of adapting the code for each browser to make it correct.
I see nothing incorrect here either.

The final scenario is if the answer(s) are incorrect, wrong, dud...
In this case (and it has happened) I would simply post that this did not work for me, and leave it at that. I certainly would not dedicate a whole blog debunking a person for what he thinks is correct. And (as also has happened) I would not expect a person for whom I had supplied an answer that didn't work, to also open a complete blog debunking me for trying to help.

So in summation...
I will not play your game. I have neither the time nor the inclination to potentially destroy what for me, was an entertaining and enjoyable time watching a video that provoked some questions.
I feel you are being destructive to no end, and you are using 'truth' as your weapon. Just as GWB did with the WMD, and NATO is doing in Libya. Conclusive proof (bullshit).

I cannot figure your motive, but I know it is serving no good.
Write a paper, publish it, and then be disinterested in NM, it's far more productive than what you are doing now....

by the way...

I do not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

End

Bob said...

Never mind - I guess I didn't really think you would.

Neither did I think you'd take any notice of the fact that he's clearly produced nothing that "works" as physics - nothing that predicts anything that could be shown to be true in the world, and so much of what he says is so easily shown to be false by straightforward observation.

Your little conspiracy world fantasy sounds fun. You won't find a single person who'll acknowledge his genius because they're all jealous! That's just great. :-)

As with everyone else who cares more for their prejudice than reality, so long as you choose not to look, you're free to believe as you will.

Never mind. As I've said to so many people, let me know if you find any reasoning or evidence that supports anything Haramein has come up with, or any reason to dispute a single criticism I've made of his ideas.

Anonymous said...

... "you are using 'truth' as your weapon. Just as GWB did with the WMD, and NATO is doing in Libya. -
Conflating an opinion article with armed conflict in the middle East? You really are clueless.
"I cannot figure your motive (thats interesting because I can: analyze Nassim Haramein's claims), but I know it is serving no good." Of course it serves no good (for you). However it IS good for most people (who aren't NH followers) because it tests and disproves his work, saving everyone the time of having to investigate for themselves.

Thanks for the excellent work Bob!

I find it ironic how Haramein criticizes the way his opinions are discarded and ignored, yet has no qualms about censoring you!
Looks like he's one of them (the establishment) afterall.

Anonymous said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 948   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

If it says 'Newest' above right of the comment box, click this to update to the most recent comments.