Saturday, February 13, 2010

Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?

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

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

Más discusión en espagñol aquí.

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

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

[Edit July 2013: He's had 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.]


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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
Little url for these articles:
A (small) Facebook group[Back to blog]


«Oldest   ‹Older   801 – 943 of 943   Newer›   Newest»
Bob said...

If you don't want derogatory comments, why wander into a conversation talking such utter shite?

Seems a little self-defeating to me :)

Anonymous said...

You mean Ship High In Transit?? No one will change their minds here, arguments need not use harsh language, just expose your views and let the fog move on.

Bob said...

People can change their minds or not as they wish, and conversations are still allowed.

"Arguments need not use harsh language" - I agree. Although, when I see no point at all in an argument (because, for example, someone's just talking shite), that's a different matter.

Do you have anything else that you want to tell me to do or not to do?

Anonymous said...

I doubt very much Mr RG is an engineer as he claims, given that his job description reads more like a vicarious account of how a misguided conspiracy theorist might perceive the world of the engineer.

If Mr RG is to claim that "the smartest scientists believed that nothing heavier than air could ever fly, then that the sound barrier was impossible to surpass" (sic) which is presumably based on the strength of the erroneous and quoted-out-of-context Lord Kelvin Gambit, then we should remember those very same "smart scientists" are responsible for heavier than air flight today - although I can find no instance of a 'smart scientist' claiming that the speed barrier could not be broken. Perhaps this claim can simply be written off as Mr RG's fabricated augmentation to his own argument?

One can assume that those same smart scientists will be the first to report to the world when the universal speed limit has been broken, not Haramein. Let us not forget that one of Haramein's own scientists (David Gerow) failed to accurately convey the value for the speed of light in one of his pieces on the Resonance Foundation website.
It's unfortunate and puzzling that Mr RG (as a professional engineer) jumped to conclusions and stopped reading the news the instant after faster-than-light-neutrinos anomalies were reported by the OPERA scientists in 2011. It makes one wonder how someone so ill-read and out of touch with current affairs and so contemptuous of universal standards could ever hold a title of any professional standing. The appeal to authority just didn't quite cut it this time Mr RG.

Anyway, against my better judgement I had another look on Haramein's website to see what latest science news he is attempting to attach his "groundbreaking" papers to. I was bereft of surprise at the usual lauding of his work being published in a french fringe science/conspiracy magazine, NEXUS (which has been criticized for the anti-semitic material it has published in the past), but was certainly more taken with the claim that Haramein's work had been presented by Marc Mistiaen to "engineers, teachers, students a few members of CERN" at a yearly conference for "one of the largest associations of engineering groups in France", ASSIDU.
Though not easy to to verify who exactly the audience was at this time, I had only to visit ASSIDU's website to see for myself the content of other presentations delivered at that very same conference to these supposed science and engineering professionals - presentations titled:

'More performance, less stress - at work and at home'

'Intangible Capital - Double your value"

'Debt a Profitable Business! Thank you for your ignorance!'

and my personal favourite:

'September 11, 2013: The three towers of September 11: A film screening and discussion on scientific impossibilities of the WTC towers. Wherein lies the truth!'

As usual Haramein seems to be in good company with his physics.


Anonymous said...

Hi Bob. I like you. I think you are right. But I also don't think that Nassim is wrong.

But I like you. I think you give out strong points. I read your points and thank you for not being an a**hole when someone challenges what you wrote.

I think any argument is a good argument. And we don't have to insult each other to get to a good point.

Bob said...

What is Nassim right about, specifically? And why do you think it?

Personally, I'm not very interested in who likes what or whom. This is the realm of advertisers, of politicians, and of story-tellers... all of which have their place, but they won't give us much insight into this beautiful world of ours on its own terms. For that, we need to get ourselves and our preferences out of the way, observe nature carefully, ask lots of questions and test every idea we have - especially the ones we may feel tempted to cling to because they suit the way we like to think.

Everyone likes a pretty story, and for some people, that is enough. If liking the sound of a story is enough for you to think that it's right, then follow the guy who tells the pretty stories. I don't know if that's what you want to do, but if it is, then it's ok.

muzuzuzus said...

Yeah your religion is repressing any actual subjective participation with nature. that is scientism alright.

Bob said...

I say "I don't know if that's what you want to do, but if it is, then it's ok", and you call that repression?

You're silly :)

Mani said...

Not really sure what harm Nassim Haramein has done with his imagination? When we judge or criticize another person, it says nothing about that person; it merely says something about our own need to be critical.If you have no will to change it, you have no right to criticize it. One mustn't criticize other people on grounds where he can't stand perpendicular himself. So in order to avoid criticism, one must do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing.

Bob said...

Hi Mani. Thanks for your thoughts.

Your comment is entirely critical. Which implies quite a comical lack of self-awareness. You can work on that, of course...

I'm quite happy with the idea that there's a positive role for criticism, especially where there are grounds to believe that someone is intentionally misleading other people. In fact I think it's irresponsible not to shed light on fraudulent behaviour if you can clearly see it. Why would I want it to remain hidden? There are no empty claims here, it's all quite transparent.

I believe in valuing understanding far more than opinions. Anyone can select an opinion that suits their mindset - it means very little. So if you'd care to stand up for the content of Haramein's theories, where they come from and what they imply, I'd welcome that.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob,

How does the recent discovery of gravitational waves produced by the Big Bang affect Nassim's theories, if at all?


Bob said...

The observation of primordial gravitational waves is very significant for any kind of scientific theory of the cosmos.

Nassim's theories, on the other hand, are made-up silliness with no reference to observable reality at all. So what effect will the news have on his theories? Whatever the hell he feels like! That's what's great about purely fictional theories :)

My guess would be that he'll make some kind of claim that it fits with his ideas, because that's what he always does.

As ever, my recommendation is that you email any scientist who is professionally employed in this area of research and ask them whether they think Nassim has any idea what he's talking about. I'm confident that they'll confirm for you that his theories have no contact with reality at all, and that he's misleading everyone who follows him.

Let me know how you get on :)

If you want to know what the recent observations mean, there are lots of great websites discussing it, such as here and here and here.

Christ Yensen said...

Although considered a crank by mainstream society, Nassim Haramein should be classed as a theoretical physicist based on definition. A big rule of theoretical physics / quantum physics is to focus on a solution that fits the behavior of the subject regardless of it's paradoxical qualities. Physicists see different states of matter and theorize reasons as to why they are behaving that way. They don't actually know, without uncertainty, what is happening to the matter. They simply make an educated guess often involving the synchronicity of multiple other fields of specialisation (e.g. philosophy/astrophysics, geometry/mathematics, quantum mechanics/electrodynamics, acoustics/cymatics, biology/chemistry). This is what Nassim does.

He isn't popular among men of letters because he uses terminology and ideas that although not necessarily disproved, are against the status-quo, in order to coherently unify seemingly unrelated areas of study; AKA The unified field theory. I find it ludicrous to corner Nassim Haramein for his attempts when this is exactly what leading physicists are up to.

It seems to be more of a popularity and publicity contest than an actual hunt for answers. Whoever says the most paradoxical, mysterious statements to the largest demographics seem to win. These things as yet are not established in concrete evidential science.

The popular physicist will be praised for endlessly repeating (in laymen's terms)vthe Schodinger's cat experiment or the double slit experiment. Nassim is one of many theoretical physicists who put their reputation (and sanity) on the line to push the barrier of science to the next level by fundamental inquisition.

If Nassim Haramein is considered a crank then so is Stephen Hawking, Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, Nikolai Tesla, Michio Kaku, Steven Weinberg, Alan Guth, Max Planck, Marie Curie, Hans Jenny, Erwin Schrodinger, Niels Bohr etc.

Loek said...

Dear Christ, Bob has thoroughly debunked the theory of Nassim Haramein. Please don't mention him in the same breath with Hawkings, Einstein, Planck, Curie etc..

Bob said...

Hello Christ.

There's a big difference between what theoretical physicists do and what a pseudoscientist does. It's how they relate their ideas to what has already been observed in nature.

If you're a theoretical physicist and your ideas go against what is observed, then you ditch your ideas, because they're clearly not what you want. This is absolutely fundamental to science, because the aim of science is to find faithful descriptions of nature. Presenting a theory of nature that hundreds of thousands of other scientists can clearly see does not match the universe around us would be idiotic.

If you're a pseudoscientist and your ideas go against what is observed, then you ignore or deny the observations of nature, keep selling your ideas to people who have absolutely no interest in the details of what has been and can be observed in nature, cast yourself as a revolutionary and the scientific establishment as the enemy and rake in the cash.

This is what Haramein does, and it's pathetic.

It doesn't surprise me that there are people (such as yourself) who are unable to tell the pretentious gobbledygook that Haramein sells from the technical language used by working physicists. Just as it doesn't surprise me that there are people who can't tell things that sound like languages from the languages themselves. I trust you have the imagination to see that a language may well mean a lot more to other people than it does to you.

If you're interested in this, I recommend this excellent blog post by Sabine Hossenfelder on exactly this topic. Please check it out.

I'm being very generous here by describing Haramein's ideas almost as if they're just wrong guesses. They're far worse than that: they're the pretentious claims of a clueless man with a skill for deceiving those who put their trust in him. As Sabine says in here post, "Pseudoscientists tend to underestimate just how obvious their lack of knowledge is."

There's a good reason why you can't sell a guidebook written in pretend Finnish to people in Finland, and it's not because they're attached to the status quo. Use your imagination a little.

tsael said...

Anyone who has meditated knows nassim is basically correct. The details are always subject. I don't need math to explain what is right on front of me. Tesla was onto something far greater than Haramein Einstein Gödel. Bucky Fuller was the only one close.

We thought the earth was flat.
We thought there was no N America.
We thought we where right when we weren't.

Everyone get over yourself. Nassim Haramein only wants to help the world. I don't see mainstream physics doing that. Mainstream anything.

Unlearn what you learned.

Bob said...

Hi Tsael. Thanks for your thoughts.

Can I ask how you have come to believe that "anyone who has meditated knows nassim is basically correct"?

Do you in fact mean "I have meditated and I like what Nassim says and I choose to believe it, and I might know some other people who might feel similarly"?

If you meant the second one, then of course that is fine.

If you meant the first one, then you really haven't thought that through, have you. I spent over a decade living in a Buddhist community, meditating regularly, and I can see very clearly that Nassim's claims are false.

So you've jumped to a bit of a silly conclusion there, haven't you?

If you read the blog, I've been saying all along that I think Nassim's ideas are very attractive for people with a tendency to jump to silly conclusions.

Do you think I've just learned things by rote, as if they're dogma that are passed down the generations? That would be jumping to pretty daft conclusions too.

If you have opinions on what academic physicists do, why not speak to some? You could choose to get to know them as human beings, find out what they value, what they believe, find out how much of their work involves challenging accepted ideas. Or you could avoid them and hang out with people who have prejudices against them. Please meditate on this choice, with honesty, and ask yourself which is the wiser course.

The reason we know the earth isn't flat isn't because someone had a new idea that other people agreed with. It's because we went and looked. And it wasn't flat.

The reason we know there is a N America is because we went and looked, and there it was.

The reason we know Haramein is talking crap is because people are looking at the things he talks about, and they can see he is wrong about everything.

Haramein doesn't look at anything. He is a story teller.

There are thousands of people who work with protons, with spacetime, with astronomical observations, with archaeological remains, with all the other things Haramein claims to know about, they are the ones looking.

Go and speak with them. Find out how you can look too, how you can see for yourself. It's all available and open for everyone.

Alternatively, you can sit and pour forth opinions and avoid paying any attention to them. Please meditate on this choice, with honesty, and ask yourself which is the wiser course.

Imagine someone came to you and suggested that you unlearn everything you have learned about your home town? Would you think they had attained wisdom?

I agree that meditation is a great tool for reflection and for self-awareness, if used well. You sometimes have to be a little patient, and try not to jump to conclusions about the rest of the world based on how a story makes you feel.

Anonymous said...

Saying that someone doesn't have a 'recognized' paper from a systematic educational university or school is where your going wrong in the first place.
Schools and the education system is a place for brain washing and to be kept in the borders. No venturing out!

Keep debunking ;)

Anonymous said...

"Schools and the education system is a place for brain washing and to be kept in the borders. No venturing out!"

Your bitter tone implies you never bothered venturing into further education - hence you really have no authority in airing your naive and paranoid opinion on the subject.

Besides, how exactly do you explain the multitude of notable physicists being in possession of a 'recognised' paper from a university or school?

That's can't. ;)

Anonymous said...

Read through some of this. Classic case of a person corrupted by the 'mainstream' model. Bob, you seem to have an answer for everything. im surprised the physicists don't come to you for answers and the complexities of the universe.

Nassim's ideas do seem very simple, but unfortunately, they make perfect, logical sense.

Whats more likely.......

The answers are so complex and so many companies, industries, authorities and societies are so 'bought' into a certain way of thinking that they dis-regard anything that contradicts that model.... and i repeat..... that they have all 'bought' into..... and they still cant figure it out.


Its quite simple and evident through countless examples through nature, the universe, geometry, spirituality, the economy etc etc...... but as it goes against the model that has lots of 'money' based ties to it, its considered crazy and people go out of their way to 'debunk' the claims.

why doesn't any of this reach mainstream media. because exposing the truth shits all over the current paradigm that everybody lives and mindlessly abides by, a media which is owned by the same corrupt people who don't what the truth getting out. The evidence is out there and easy to find. So, so, so many people for all walks of life come to the same conclusion, with more and more evidence pointing to that conclusion all the time.

Bob said...

I'm aware that lots of people like to think this, and like to imagine professional scientists as being narrow-minded and dismissive.

I'm also aware that (a) very few of these people know many scientists personally and understand their values and their priorities as human beings, and (b) very few of these people have any depth of understanding of science.

Sound and informed arguments against any or all aspects of mainstream science are always welcome here - especially if you have good reason to disagree with me.

Empty claims and expressions of contempt based on lack of understanding, on the other hand... I don't see the point of them, really. But do keep writing - I'm interested to see if that's all you have.

Anonymous said...

if u can't understand a fractal then you can never have a complete understanding. a science that can't understand the irregularities in nature is always incomplete. every great work is ignored in the beginning. u don;t have to be a physicist to understand the nature. encourage everyone to learn physics and if you want to disprove any theory do it in a scientific way not by a radical way like a judge in a court

Bob said...

I do understand fractals, I know nature is irregular, I have disproved Haramein's ideas in a scientific way, I do encourage people to learn physics, it's not true that great works are always ignored, and this blog isn't like a court.


Anonymous said...

More or less all current understandings of physics are based on false models, and fundamentally floored assumptions. You should know this if you are that clued up on physics.

The currently accepted models of the universe are the Multiverse Theory & String Theory (Theory, not fact).

Have you studied these models....... They are INSANE. Regardless of how clever you are or your knowledge of mathematics & physics. Multiple universes all floating around bumping into each other randomly. Come on, they are so ridiculous they are laughable.

Yes they present a very good case with testable results, but also fail to explain an awful lot as as well. At the end of the day they are just theories.

Nassims Model, The Unified Field Theory (There's that word again, Theory, not fact) is a lot more believable from a all sorts of points of views, with evidence supporting it throughout recorded history, and before that. With evidence viewable from the atomic to the galactic. Linking Religion, spirituality, Geometry, astrology, astronomy, nature, genetic proportions, thought patterns.... the list is endless. And with more and more recent evidence to support the Holographic universe theory popping up every day. If you don't take it on board and except it as a Theory, just like the other Theories, you are a fool. To dismiss it is ignorant. But i guess ignorance is bliss to the man who is bound by the rules put in place for him.

In the words of Einstein himself..... "The only thing that interferes with my learning, is my education"

Bob said...

I agree that string theory and multiverse theories are not true physics. Some physicists do claim that they are, but many would not. Neat ideas that seem to have no contact with the observable world do not count as science, for me, and I have very little interest in them.

The difference between those ideas and Haramein's, though, is huge. They are the ideas of people who understand the rest of physics. They are ideas by people who appreciate that it is essential that they do not contradict what is observed. They are ideas by people who have spent decades understanding the structures of successful models of the universe and want to improve them.

They are not ideas by incompetent buffoons with zero understanding of physics and a contempt for centuries of observational and experimental insights, and they are not ideas that will only ever be successful among scientifically illiterate audiences who have neither the will nor the ability to deeply question what he says.

It's such a huge difference. Think about it, if you wish.

With your last quote, are you trying to suggest that Einstein would stand in support of you NOT educating yourself in science sufficiently to deeply question Haramein's theories? Honestly?

Anonymous said...

I'm not saying that about Einstein.... and i do question Harameins work, but he was definitely ensuing that you shouldn't take everything you have learned through mainstream models as gospel. Einstein did consider Nikola Tesla as being far more advanced than him though, and Harameins work is linked a lot more to the same lines as Tesla's.

I appreciate that you have been defending your side of the argument since early 2010, which I respect your dedication. My understanding of physics is admittedly limited. I'm more interested in Human history and ancient archaeology, which is another field which has been completely manipulated to 'fit in' with the currently model and ignores so much compelling evidence and written off as crazy..... which mirrors this whole thread being discussed by yourself.

And lets not forget the number of great minds throughout history that have been labelled the likes of 'incompetent buffoons' and much worse who's ridiculous theories such as Geocentric & Heliocentrism to name a couple over time, and have then gone on to be considered scientific fact that the mainstream science you defend is now based on.

Nassim Haramein published this statement recently......

In 2012 Nassim Haramein precisely predicted the radius of the proton which was later confirmed by a Swiss proton accelerator experiment in 2013. This extremely precise prediction was made utilizing the smallest measurement units known to physicists, the Planck units. As a result, Haramein was able to demonstrate that cosmological gravitation and the source of the strong force stems from this underlying Planck field of electromagnetic fluctuations. for more on this.

This is a fantastic debate though.

Bob said...

Re Haramein's statement: it's an outright lie. I'll refer you to an earlier response where I've given more information.

This isn't a debate, any more than the "debate" about evolution is a debate. The only people who stand up for Haramein's physics are people who don't understand the subject and are so attached to their opinions that they paralyse themselves from finding out what is going on.

A group of blind people arguing with sighted people over what colour grass is isn't a debate either. It's just silly.

lgstarr said...

A friend just posted "The Power of Spin" on FB...these people seemed stoned so I decided to research and found your post(s). Thanks so much for taking the time to explain your views on Haramein! I read Fred Alan Wolf's "Taking the Quantum Leap" in the '80's which I loved, and then a Hawking book--that's the extent of my scientific knowledge (I was a professional musician and composer) except for a more recent article in the L.A. Times several years ago about String Theory, branes and 11 dimensions. I was fascinated, but just don't have the knowledge to really understand a lot of it so really appreciate your information. I have to admit I fit the model of that cartoon about people being "wrong" on the Internet :-)

Bob said...

Thanks Igstarr :)

Anonymous said...

Maybe when mainstream science starts to investigate the connections between ancient scientific knowledge and current quantum phenomena as well as the connections between science and spirituality, and allows for open, disclosed discourse, rather than shrouding its studies in secrecy...maybe when mainstream science, especially in the USA, finally discloses alien existence......maybe when mainstream science starts talking to the public more about the incredible power of the observer (double slit) and about the question it set out to ask in the first place (why are we here?) instead of focusing on sex drive...maybe when mainstream science starts being used as a tool of empowerment, rather than a tool for profit gain...maybe when mainstream science can approach and investigate the same seemingly taboo inquiries as Nassim does before first jumping to debunk....maybe then we will start to believe that mainstream science has our best interests in mind, maybe then will there not be a need for people like Nassim to make the connections we so desperately desire that mainstream science rides off as unworthy of exploration - really, that is the most unscientific response that I can think of...please, then, point me in the direction of someone who is exploring with scientific inquiry those subjects which Nassim delves into who you and the mainstream scientific community support and I will look them up!

Anonymous said...

What are your credentials?

Mani said...

I agree with Anonymous mainstream science should open up facts and not hide facts from people...unless if it's reserved only to the elite!

Bob said...

Hello Anonymous.

My experience of giving credentials on the internet is that people either (a) don't believe me (and why should they?), or (b) accuse me of being poisoned by education so that I can no longer recognise original thought, or (c) accuse me of making arguments from authority or lording credentials over people. I don't want to go there. I'm interested in careful reasoning and honest exploration of the wonders of nature - I'm not interested in who said what.

If you need credentials, there's a very straightforward path you can take. Go to any well-regarded university physics department, choose one or more of the physicists there whose credentials are acceptable to you, send them a polite email asking for their thoughts on Haramein. If you don't get many replies to emails, try visiting in person.

It's a free world - there's no secrecy. Lots of people in the physics community are very open and friendly towards people with a genuine interest in physics, if that's what you want to know.

Bob said...

If you approach physicists with a list of demands, I wouldn't rate your chances too high, though. They are there to explore nature as it is, not to adopt your favourite ideas.

John Paily said...

Let me introduce myself briefly - As research scientist in biotechnology my thinking were radical as I approached very difficult highly commercial national high priority research and made progress. This fetched me jobs in multinational companies. But what I saw in test tubes shacked the foundation on which I stood and also disturbed my consciousness and prompted me for a search to know truth of life. In 1986 I quit my job, and in 1987 on the eve submission of doctoral thesis, when I was forced to choose between my consciousness or position in academic world, I chose to break loose from Plato’s chair of science. Since then I lived in an interior village helping my parents and making farming my means of lively hood. Here in nature I began to see dramatically different vision of life and began to realize the fallacy on which modern biotechnology is built – looking for its root led me to theoretical physics. I read great minds and their conceptual thinking. This also began to reveal the great fundamental questions and paradoxes that physicist left behind as they approached to capture nature into predictable mathematical constructs and exploit nature than understand her.

It was surprising to realize that we do not know what property gives gravity. Why ratio of acceleration of two interacting bodies always is 3, why wave particle duality, why gene is triplet code, why DNA helical, why pairs of genes, why pairs of chromosomes, why mitosis and meiosis – the question is unending. We in our mathematical quest have created more question than answers and taken truth of nature farther from common man. Is nature this complex? Can we not visualize a simple PRINCIPLE AND DESIGN on which the building block of nature and the whole universe works. Within a short time free from Plato’s chair, free in nature, she began to show the pages of her book and reveal the simplicity

However, I failed to grasp one thing, the origin and existence of the universe in time perpetually. Even this revealed in in all simplicity as I surrendered my ego and accepted my mind death. It is nearly two decades since this happened. But my problem is how do I reach back to people chained to Plato’s chair in great temples of science. I feel Nassim Haremein has depth in his vision. But he is misunderstood as he tries to present it to the people who chained to chairs of science. Science came as a resistance and hope against self-centered evil religious people ruling humanity in the name of God. Today the religious people specially self, power and material centered people in it are becoming powerful under the failure of scientist to make nature and its comprehension simple and sensible to common man. It is time for scientist to drop their ego and come together. I also live in the same situation as Nassim Haremein and probably in total helpless condition. But I keep faith in my conscious call and look for a time when common people will shear the foundation of modern theoretical physics and restructure and take knowledge of Nature and God to Higher level. Here is a link that share my thought

Bob said...

Thanks for the intro, John.

I'm glad that you have surrendered your ego and accepted mind death and now feel you are above the whole of science. I guess the whole of science should stop learning from direct observation of nature, and start learning from you. It must be cool to be so humble and at the same time think you have a better insight into physics than everyone else. Dude. It's like the best of both worlds :/

What a strange, transparent, absurd lack of self-awareness some people have.

Anonymous said... background at all. Keep up the good work guy. Your changing the world.

Jamiemetal Death said...

I don't think he's a sage or a fraud. I just think he's nuts.

Bob said...

Could be.

Anonymous said...

For starters I appreciate the patience and charity you maintain when responding to many of these posts. I imagine this must take a measure of calculated restraint sometimes. That said I would like to present some of my thoughts on the subject.
First off, it seems that credentials are the prerequisite to posting valid arguments in this forum. I would like to state right off that I am not a scientist, and have no degrees. I am not trained in physics nor do I know how to prove or disprove anything Mr. Haramein has said or published to date.
There is an underlying argument here that I feel is part of the driving force for or against your position, that is somewhat unrelated to whether or not Mr. Haramein is correct or incorrect. I feel people (including myself) want to BELIEVE he is correct. Just as we all want to BELIEVE that the scientists and other professional occupations have the betterment of mankind as a core mission. We want to BELIEVE that human kind can some day find a level of mastery of the physical world, enough to ensure the survival of the species, and what the heck, the global ecosystem. We believe in people, institutions, and occupations we do not fully understand. It doesn't take a scientist to look around and find plenty of reasons as to why this belief is shaken.
There is a large gap between the “common” man and scientists, and the institutions that train them. Without going on to describe this in detail, I will just mention here that a part of the gaps are due to wealth, education quality, and education costs.
Of all the things in this forum that I read, the one thing that I found most irritating was the backhanded comment about the man who claimed to have been trained at Oxford. This was probably intended as an inside joke, but none the less is the driving force for my comment. His credentials were cast aside by a claimed doctor over a spelling error. You later stated that this spelling error may be due in part to his nationality, but that his logic could still be somewhat cast aside because it was after all a masters from Oxford, and that they produce some questionable types (not a quote, and not very funny). Please understand this comment is not directed at you specifically, but at the system as a whole: “What elitist BULSHIT”. Lets suppose that any of these credentials were in fact possessed by the commentators. In what crazy world is a spelling error enough to dismiss someones argument and training? If those are the standards we must try to overcome, then what does that say about the rest of us down here, pretending that any education from any institution that isn't a part of a qualifying list is enough to post anything of substance to this forum. If these are the perimeters, than all anyone is doing here is setting you up for an exercise in pontification. I could go on and on as to why this is a symptom of a greater problem but I will instead ill continue towards conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Nassim Haramein represents a man who has circumvented the educational institutions and trained himself far enough to write professional papers. Whether or not they even get approved by peer review is besides the point Im trying to make here. And wether or not he is or isnt a complete con is besides my point as well. We all want to believe him, because we all want to believe that knowledge isn't the property of the educational system. But that a man, with enough ambition, can educate himself, and better man kind. Wether or not he claims to be a scientist is besides the point. Nassim Haramein is inspiring because he represents the freedom of knowledge. Knowledge that doesn't need the blessing of a university before its use is valid. The more we validate him, the more we validate mans ability to learn about the physical world for himself outside of the traditional education system. He represents the idea that knowledge of the natural world is not held hostage by a universities tuition. When someone attacks Mr. Haramein, they attack this hope.
Lastly I would like to ask you what your definition of a scientist is? At what point does a person become a scientist whose theories are valid enough for consideration and further examination? As far as I can tell there is no specific threshold that qualifies someone. When presenting a paper for peer review, what standardized qualification must someone possess in order to be considered. I would hope that your definition could encompass the following questions: What is the minimum threshold for this qualification? Is it a bachelors degree, or are you then considered just a technician. Is it a masters degree? Is it a Doctorate? Do different fields of study have different thresholds for the title scientist? Was Nicola Tesla a scientist? If yes, does this fit within your operational definition?

Anonymous said...

Works Cited
Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Scientist. Retrieved November 12, 2014, from http://
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Scientist. Retrieved November 12, 2014, from
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Scientist. Retrieved November 12, 2014, from

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your time. I hope, for all my errors in spelling and grammar and lack of formal education, something about this post reemaynz valid. And just for kicks, posted for peer review:

Observation: Nassim Haramein is claimed to be a scientist.
Question: Is Nassim Haramein a scientist?
Background: Nassim Haramein is a man who has studied physics and geometry to some extent. He is a part of organizations which try to come up with unifying theory in the field of physics. He builds devices that are the manifestation of a knowledge of physics. He has written a number of papers for peer review. He has won an award for these efforts in physics through a university in Belgium.
Hypothesis: I hypothesize that Nassim Haramein is a scientist.
Experiment: I will create an experiment to prove that Nassim Haramein is not a scientist. Dependent variable: Nassim Harameins title as a scientist. Independent variable: Definitional parameters of a scientist. First we must come up with a consensus on the operational definition of a scientist. By looking at several definitions in the dictionaries Oxford, and Webster, and why not Wiki we might be able to come up with some qualifying factors. If Nassim Haramein does not meet these standards he is not a scientist. Does he meet the qualifications based on the following:
First, Oxford Definition- Qualification- Yes
Second, Merriam-Webster Definition-Qualification- Yes
Third, Wiki Definition- Yes
Questions and answers based on definitions:
1. Does Mr Haramein use the scientific method: Yes
2. Does Mr Haramein use his knowledge of the physical world to conduct experiments: Yes
3. Is Mr Haramein trained in physics: Yes, all be it unconventionally
4. Does his job involve scientific research: Yes
5. Does his job involve solving scientific Problems: Yes
6. Would his pursuits be considered an intellectual endeavor of physics: Yes
7. Do his actions include observation of physics: Yes
8. Do his actions involve experimentation based on a knowledge of physics: Yes
9. Is his work designed to better understand nature: Yes
Conclusion: Nassim Haramein meets the definition of a scientist based on definitions posed by the oxford dictionary, webster dictionary, and wikipedia. The data supports my theory that Nassim Haramein is a scientist.
Communication of results: Nassim haramein is a scientist. However there is another aspect to Nassim Harameins work that coincides with his scientific work. This is his interpretation of the data for human metaphysical implications, and an assumed purpose for his pursuit in this endeavor. The interpretation, and purpose of his pursuits in the field of physics is a question all its own. There is nothing in the operational definition that qualifies or disqualifies someones title as “scientist” based on the reasons why someone pursues knowledge of physics. Until such time, my theory that Nassim Haramein is a scientist will remain steadfast.
Works Cited

Bob said...

Hi Anonymous

You're absolutely right to question what we believe. The nature of science, when practiced correctly, is to continually question what we believe. That is precisely the ideal that I want to be held to.

I agree wholeheartedly that the way the world operates nowadays is in dire need of change. I agree that questioning what we believe has a huge, positive role to play in attempting to address this.

Re the backhanded comment about the man who claimed to have been trained at Oxford, that wasn't made by me, which is why I dismissed that comment. Small grammatical errors don't carry any significance for me, and I certainly don't have any prejudice against Oxford. (I think you may have misunderstood what was said there, but do say more if you think it's important.)

There is only one reason why I dismiss Haramein's physics claims, and that is because they are demonstrably false. Whatever else I may say, that is the only reason for dismissing them. So let's be very clear: if you assert that I'm dismissing his ideas for any other reason, then you have mistaken what I am saying.

How would I define a scientist? I don't have a handy definition, but the qualities that matter most to me are: continually questioning what we believe, striving for understanding, taking nature as the ultimate source and the ultimate test of all ideas, and above all: honesty.

If you are striving for understanding then you would never say "I'm not an expert in this area, but I can tell you that these things are wrong." That would be precisely the opposite of striving for understanding.

I don't care what qualifications you have... If you have these values and you live by them, you are doing science.

Was Nicola Tesla a scientist? Of course. Does that mean he never did anything that wasn't science? Of course not. We're all human.

To address your other questions 1 - 9 directly... I would argue the opposite to every single one of the answers you have suggested. Every single one.

Where shall we begin?

I'll add one thing, if I may... I don't consider my role to be to try to convince someone who has a great faith in Haramein's character to change their minds. If that's you, then please take care of yourself and don't trouble yourself with my blog.

My interest here is in science, and the values that I've stated. If we agree on those, then I'd be interested to investigate with you any of the questions you've raised in detail. Feel free to suggest the scientific values that are most meaningful to you if you wish.

PhxMarkER said...

So, what is your answer to the proton radius problem, the Galaxy rotation problem, and the origin of mass?

Bob said...

My answer to the proton radius problem is to encourage the people who are actually working with actual protons to continue to do their research, searching for insight into the nature of the proton by using creativity, intelligence and international collaborations to design and build ever more precise ways of observing the actual charge radius of actual protons.

(Here's what my answer to the proton radius problem is not: make up some shit, avoid collaboration at all costs, pretend to have a solution, write a fake paper on it, and use hype to sell your brand to people who don't understand physics. That would be dishonest and fraudulent. Haramein does that.)

There hasn't really been a galaxy rotation problem for decades. I don't think there are many serious physicists who doubt the existence of dark matter. It has been observed indirectly in many many many independent ways - gravitational lensing, cosmology - all entirely consistent with the galaxy rotation curves.

There are many known types of matter that are not visible using light or any kind of EM radiation (which is almost all we ever use when observing astrophysical objects). Neutrinos, neutrons and any number of other neutral particles are entirely invisible. Some people find it absurd that something might be out there that we can't see... these aren't people with much insight into particle physics.

So that one's essentially been resolved for some time... and researchers will continue to observe and study it for decades, I'm sure, trying out every avenue their creativity can come up with.

My answer to the origin of mass would be that this too was resolved in the 70s. Again, the theory has been tested and questioned and checked in every way imaginable. The particle of the field that mediates it was directly created and observed in the LHC a couple of years ago. Are these theories still being tested and challenged? Of course.

Should we ditch them because some dude in Hawaii who can't explain a school physics concept without getting his little head in a tangle has a following that think he's the new Einstein? I say let's not.

Does that sound reasonable?

PhxMarkER said...

The case for dark matter and dark energy is dimming. Dark matter and dark energy do not exist. It was created out of whole cloth to make the theory fit the data.

So, Bob, you are incomplete and outdated in your understanding.

Good luck to you as I wish you well on your endeavors.

Bob said...

When someone posts a question, I like to assume that the person asking has some degree of interest and is willing to engage in some kind of investigation or conversation with the intention of deepening their understanding - or perhaps helping me to deepen mine.

That does happen sometimes. Other times, though, the person asking has no interest in understanding. They're here to express their prejudices, make silly claims and demonstrate the naïvety that makes them fodder for story-tellers.

Thanks for that, Phx :)

PhxMarkER said...

Nassim's material speaks for itself and you can invest your time into it or be left behind. I'm basically letting you know you are missing the boat on this one. He's teaching a course right now you could be studying along with the 1500 others.

Bob said...

Thanks, but I think 99.99...% of the world's population would agree that I've invested way more time than is sensible or sane in this guy's material over the last five years. I hope you enjoy your boat ride to the shiny new galactic society. I'm sure it'll be lovely.

Angela Beatty said...

I have no background in maths or science. The only thing I've seen of Nassiem is the lecture on sacred geometry. The beginning was funny but mathematically silly. I was not happy with the deductive reasoning at the end because it detracted from the human potential, (regardless of whether aliens exist or not.) However I found the main part thrilling. It rang true for me because many years ago, as I was coming out of a meditation, before I opened my eyes, I had a vision of triangles, the infinite intricacy of which was too beautiful to observe fully! And there was a sense of curvature too. I realised that it represented unboundedness unified with the strong boundaries of creation at different levels. If anyone would like to ask me more about this please feel free. Cheers

Anonymous said...

just because you don't understand Nassim's work doesn't mean he is a fraud, same goes for Marko Rodin.

Danilo Marvel said...

i smell arogants and idiots somewhere

Bob said...


Anonymous said...

Bob do you work for shell ?

Bob said...


Anonymous said...

Saw his disciple preach this crap at a dance festival here in Australia over the weekend. When I tried to point out that he lacks the basics of physics people claimed that previous geniuses in history were also ridiculed.
The difference they did not contradict known facts..... I could not sit through more than 5 minutes with out getting annoyed. A crime against the human intellect!!!

Bob said...

Yes, if someone is ridiculed and ignored by everyone in your field, the most likely reason is that they're a genius...

The level of delusion required for that kind of reasoning is remarkable. Haramein hasn't exactly surrounded himself with shining examples of clarity of mind and self-awareness, has he :)

Peter said...

I watched his videos from cognos 2010 and read some of his papers. In his dvd the black whole he keeps repeating the same and going by his "advancements" in 2015 he hasn't had any patent that will lead us anywhere. I don't care about his math or the fact it's flawed. I liked his story and his manner of speaking. It's entertaining to watch and some of his ideas are fun to think about.
I suck at math and didn't got a proper education in any field of physics. I did however finish education in electronics and his design for a magnetohydrodynamics thingamajig would lead to a cool gadget. In the cognos 2010 videos he shows a patent from Walter Russell which as he claims was handed to him. I am interested in getting this patent in a better version. Although i don't believe there is such a thing as Free Energy, i am certain we are nowhere near optimal energy generation. Burning stuff just seems dated. Are you willing to tell us your opinion about more people? Bashar (Darryl Anka), Nikola Tesla and Marco Rodin come to mind. I would love to read your opinion about them.

Bob said...

Entertaining, yes. Haramein's talks are for people with no depth of understanding of science who like stories and don't notice (or don't care) when they're being lied to.

Bashar: never heard of.

Tesla: yes, electromagnetics genius, who nevertheless also had some crackpot ideas too (so if he said something, that doesn't make it true).

Rodin: moron.

Sorry for the brevity, but you asked for opinions :)

I'm more interested in discussing the science than giving opinions on people... if there are particular ideas that interest you, we could talk about those

Anonymous said...

Sounds like the author is desperately clinging to mainstream theories. Do not resist change.

Bob said...

No desperation here. I love letting go and moving forwards.

Please tell me about this change, and how an open-minded person could come to recognise Haramein's physics ideas as a step forwards. I've been asking for someone to do this for five years...

Unknown said...

Nassim H is just a grifter. He floated a prospectus a few years ago for a "Blu Companies" offering, in which he proposed to take $80M US from investors in exchange for developing perpetual motion machines, rare earth mineral discovery (anywhere in the Solar System!), clean tech engines, blah blah. It was covered by an NDA, but I do not observe NDAs from people who are clearly trying to defraud investors. He's not a harmless crank; he's actively trying to confiscate assets from naive investors. Stay far, far away.

phxmarker mark said...

I can't argue with accuracy. Nassim's theory works!

I have helped blow over $100M US on PRML4 read channel devices in the 1990s until Marevell stole our circuits. If I had that money now, I would invest it all in Nassim's work.

Bob said...

Thanks 'Unknown'. I agree. I'm aware of his free energy device scam. It's one more reason as to why I don't hesitate now to call him an outright liar. Back then, there was very little on the web to indicate to naïve investors that the guy was a crank - I think that's changed now.

He's still actively confiscating cash from his fans, though. The kickstarter for his film has passed a quarter of a million dollars, despite being both 'flexible funding' (meaning he keeps all the cash whether or not the project goes ahead) and 'forever funding' meaning there's no end to the fundraising - people can keep throwing money at him forever. To reasonable investors, these are red flags, but he knows how to surround himself with gullible fools and keep reasonable people at a distance.

Bob said...

Have to laugh at phxmarker's physics blog. It's a very neat illustration of the pathetic sort of mind that is led along by someone like Haramein. So easily seduced by the suggestion that he might be in possession of some cosmic knowledge, he's completely oblivious to the transparent stupidity of the things it leads him to say.

These are the people Haramein surrounds himself with now. There are lots of them, but they're all just too hopelessly silly to trouble anyone with a genuine interest in understanding or developing anything aside from stories. Keeps them all happy, I guess...

Unknown said...

Then this seems to suggest that the mainstream science community must be one big bunch of fools and suckers. >>>

Bob said...

Thanks for the link, Unknown. Now we know that either I'm a sucker for not believing the claims on that web page, or you're a sucker for believing them.

One of us is a sucker. We should investigate and find out which of us it is. What do you propose we do?

(Here's my suggestion.)

Karl said...

Good grief. Every other comment reads something like... "I'm not an expert, and barely know anything about this, in fact; but it seems to me that you're wrong and Haramein is right." Or: "You researched and thought about this, and I apparently won't even consider your reasoning, but you're close-minded." And the old standbys, "You're not nice. He's just thinking outside the box. You're afraid of new things. Scientists are engaged in conspiracy."

In other words, anything except to actually ADDRESS THE DAMN ARGUMENTS. It's astounding that, out of the incredible number of comments, 99% of the critical ones trod the exact same, limited set of "avoiding-the-pointy" accusations.

Bob said...

Exactly so.

We might not be able to get through to everyone, but at least the question "Are there any Haramein supporters who are willing and able to consider a set of arguments and reason for themselves?" has been settled.

Anonymous said...

It will be fun watching you attempt to hide this blog after the science shows the answers, and it will. It is coming, the results... ;-)

Bob said...

Yes, we have so many examples of Haramein's supporters being incapable of addressing arguments or reasoning for themselves, so many examples of them offering nothing but clichéd fantasies and empty claims... It'll be so embarrassing when all that suddenly changes... ;-)

Karl said...

How soon is it coming? It'd be interesting to have a prediction.

You surely have a reason for believing this, as well; can you explain why you find Dr. Bob's criticisms unsatisfactory?

I'm going to guess that you didn't even read them, though. It's not about the evidence at all.

I'm constantly staggered that there are so many people who don't understand how, or why, to rationally consider claims and weigh evidence, but I suppose I ought to be used to it by now. I wish such people were self-aware enough to explain what they're using in place of "consider the evidence". What's the heuristic? What decides them?

I speculated about what motivates those who don't reason, but the best I could come up with is that questions might be decided by what feels good... or it might be about which *figure* to support... or perhaps it's about signaling to the world what kind of person you are ("I'm not a dusty ol' *mainstream* scientist, trapped in a box...").

In the end, I wrote a post, explaining (to my non-existent readership :-) that I thought some people just can't distinguish between modes of reasoning -- paraphrasing Katherine Schulz, "being wrong feels like being right" -- but that's hardly ground-breaking stuff... only idle speculation, really. It's just frustrating to see you (Bob) get attacked with spurious "arguments" by drive-by commenters who will presumably never even understand what motivated you to write these posts, nor the issues outlined in them, and who will go on to forget Haramein when nothing comes of his hypotheses but will never find cause to re-evaluate their beliefs.

But there are also comments by people who were on the fence, and it's these people who used to motivate me to debate in comment threads and on bulletin boards. I think you can be proud that you've served them well, and that you've stood up for the principles of reasoning, evidence, and science in general. This is my new favorite blog! (Stumbled across a link to it in an old, old Good Math/Bad Math comment thread, and I'm glad I did.)

Bob said...

Thanks Karl! It's the people who are intrigued by Haramein's universe but aren't already committed to it (and trapped in it) that keep me going too.

I've also learned a lot about the many faces of denial and wilful ignorance from the other commenters on this site. It's been oddly fascinating.

Karl, you might enjoy this video on science denial. The focus is on climate change, but it's very relevant to the things discussed here and the issues you raised on your blog too.

It's part of a series made by the University of Queensland, and it's based on a huge amount of psychology and related research (which means it isn't just some dude's cute idea). It's good to see that so many people are seriously working on this stuff. Probably far more now, because the particular case of climate change poses unprecedented psychological problems for humans, and it's rapidly becoming kind of a big deal.

This was my favourite of the interviews. It's amazing what these people have to deal with. It says a lot about how the human brain is susceptible to becoming entangled and stuck, and how creative people set about dealing with it.

Thanks again for stopping by.

Harun Math said...

Haramein is wrong, of course. Physics professor Laura Mersini-Houghton mathematically proved that black holes do not exist, therefore we do not live in one either (, watch?v=jINHHXaPrWA, watch?v=fsWKlNfQwJU). The question is, will those on the mainstream heed your advice to Nassim to admit errors, or will they act as Nassim and "believe" that their science is correct? That surely will be an interesting one to follow.
(There is no a "super-massive black hole" in the center of our galaxy,

Bob said...

Hi Harun.

Good luck waiting for the mainstream to agree with you on that one :)

Here's a more sensible perspective on the PhysOrg click-bait page that you've linked to.

The other article you linked to doesn't say there's no supermassive black hole. You might want to read it again.

The "black holes don't exist" canard is a common one among non-astrophysicists. You can hang onto canards if they make you happy, but at some point you might want to recognise that when there's a community of people who have devoted their lives to studying a very complex subject, it's likely that they might be better informed than you.

Harun Math said...

I agree with you, it won't happen for another 50 or so years. I know what the article say, I get their attempt at the swindle of what it should mean, but what it really means is there is no black hole there. I mean, I would really like to see one! Astrophysicist are special kind, remember those "mystery radio waves from deep space" that were loud mouthed as "breaking news"? If astrophysicist could just work their darn microwave ovens!

Bob said...

"what it really means is there is no black hole there."

I see, so you do think you know better than the entire worldwide community of individuals who have devoted their lives to understanding the subject.

What can I say.

Someone friendly should let you know that you're delusional and/or arrogant and/or just fucking stupid. In a friendly way.

Harun Math said...

So, you do "know" that every astrophysicist in the world thinks that black wholes exist?

What can I say.

You probably "know" that all astrophysicists have seen one? You may be even more delusional then Nassim, who sees (w)holes everywhere.

It may be my lying eyes, but I still need to see one (and, you too), regardless of all the devotion and passion, which is undoubted and all that.

Bob said...

Let me be more precise. The worldwide community of astrophysicists has established a strong scientific consensus that black holes exist.

What is a strong scientific consensus? It's agreement by the vast majority of experts based on (a) fundamental understanding of the principles of physics, (b) multiple lines of observational evidence, (c) a vast amount of debate and discussion of the details of the implications among the community, (d) this agreement being widespread among many astrophysical communities regardless of nationality, language, faith, age, social background, ideology or any other sociocultural characteristic.

This agreement has not been reached by devotion and passion, it is reached by understanding the physics, doing the observations, being able to assess the implications, being able to work with a wide variety of perspectives and alternative theories, arguing and eventually concluding that there is simply no sense in which anyone could look at the vast array of observational evidence and deny that black holes don't exist.

Could someone not look at the vast array of evidence and deny that they exist? Of course. You're doing it. It's easy to be ignorant.

You don't need to see one in order to accept it. You don't need to see your own birth in order to know that it happened - all you need is an appreciation of basic biology. You only have to see a few optical illusions, or to know that infrared and ultraviolet light exist, to know that relying on seeing things directly with your eyes is extremely limiting.

But if you what you really want is to place your story preferences and your ignorance above the understanding of others, then go ahead. It hardly matters whether or not you believe in black holes. Personally, though, I always prefer to think that you - and other people who adopt random opinions based on ignorance - are capable of using your mind a little more wisely.

Harun Math said...

Not sure why you have unfriendly attitude, but you pretty much behave like Nassim.
I cannot see my own birth, but I can see someone else birth, so I do not have to invent speculations how it happens.
What is the "observational evidence" for black hole? Please show me one (no need for multiple).
Physics professor Laura Mersini-Houghton is not ignorant, it's just result of math calculation.
What happens when they take down building by a controlled demolition? They make it collapse inward, onto a central point. Does all of building material collapse into one clean pile? No, it does not, it shoots lots of dust and debry all around. This is similar to what Houghton says, black hole cannot form as it shads mass while collapsing. That is why they see "streaks" of gas and dust emitted by a collapsing star.
Again, I would like to see just one "black hole".

Bob said...

As a friendly tip - and I mean this sincerely, not sarcastically - one of the worst things you can do if you meet a physicist, or anyone who's spent their life wrestling with a complex discipline, is to just walk up to them with and insist that they and all their colleagues are wrong and that you are right, despite having no depth of understanding of the subject at all.

It's like walking up to a garage mechanic and insisting and insisting and insisting that your theory proves that cars run on fairy dust. Or walking up to a heart surgeon and insisting that the circulatory system is powered by the kidneys. Or walking up to a native German speaker and insisting that the German word for tree is pumpernickel because you read it on the internet. They aren't going to think "ah, this guy is a friend", they're going to think "wtf, this guy is a ****".

If you want to know about black holes, find out what the community of astrophysicists understand about them, and how they have come to understand what they understand, and why they are so convinced. Note that there have been tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals about black holes in the last few decades, and essentially none have seriously disputed their existence.

So far, it seems you are not interested in these, you are interested in one paper that appears to say something different. This is a blatant example of cherry-picking, and if you're not aware that you're doing it, you should try to become aware, because it's very bad form.

Prof Mersini-Houghton is a very accomplished physicist and her paper is extremely interesting, but she is not an astrophysicist, she is a theoretical cosmologist. In the backreaction papers you refer to, she is applying a particular mathematical model in a particular way to the process of collapse of a star. Is that model correct? We don't know - it's a model. Has she applied it correctly? We don't know - it is still the subject of scientific debate, and lots of fellow physicists believe she has not applied the model correctly.

The idea that she has proved mathematically that black holes cannot form is absolutely false.

She's explored some assumptions about some of the models of the process of stellar collapse, and shown that there are parts of that process that are not fully understood. It's potentially a very useful contribution to the development of deeper understanding of those particular models.

Please read this article on the subject. It will also answer some of your questions about the evidence for black holes. And please, don't come back insisting that your opinions are more valid than the consensus among astrophysical community. I don't want to hear any more of that. And please don't do it to any other physicist either.

If you want to challenge the consensus, you can, of course, but you will need first to understand the observational and conceptual foundations upon which that consensus is based.

Harun Math said...

No, my intention is not to challenge auto-mechanic or surgeon profession, let alone the "I have huge experience, thus I know the best" egos that exist within all professions. The article you provided I already read last month and I knew that it had 2 artist rendering photos of "black holes", nothing more, no real evidence. I also read numerous books and text books on the subject of black holes.
Mersini's paper provided rough solution, but new paper offers a very precise numerical solution and these people that did it are very knowledgeable about this topic (
In case you missed it in my first post, I'd suggest you (and everybody else interested in black holes) watch this on youtube, watch?v=jINHHXaPrWA and watch?v=fsWKlNfQwJU.

Bob said...

Ok, now you're claiming that the reason the world's scientists don't agree with you is because of their egos. :)

The pretence and misuse of science in that video is pretty pathetic. But at least you've found your spiritual home. Please don't bother any more physicists. It won't go well.

Harun Math said...

"Please don't bother any more physicists. It won't go well."
You should not issue threats, unless you are willing to do it face to face. I would be willing to offer you that opportunity with me, you can contact me at and I will meet you right away.

Bob said...

Jesus, you're thick. In a strangely amusing way. How is that a threat, you numpty?

I'm letting you know that no physicist will respond positively to the ignorant things you say, and requesting that you please leave them alone.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob, just wanted to let you know that I think you are doing a great job here. You are my hero!

Anonymous said...

Where can I donate ;)

Kristel said...

Elizabeth A. Rauscher, Ph.D., Nuclear and Astrophysics
Physics Research Director, TRL Laboratory
“Over the past several years I have had the fortunate opportunity to work with Nassim Haramein. Haramein’s research is very complimentary to my own, and he has vastly extended research that I had conducted over a number of years at the University of California at Berkeley, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Bob said...

Thanks Anonymous (May 27) :-)

Hi Kristel. You might be interested in Goldacre's First Law of Bullshit Dynamics: "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."

Some people are so biased towards Haramein that a single impressive-sounding endorsement makes it obvious to them that Haramein must be right, but the fact that all his ideas are dismissed by the whole of mainstream science doesn't count.

Haramein is very skilled in amplifying people's prejudices against hundreds of thousands of working scientists. He encourages his fans to think of them as a kind of unfeeling blob called "the mainstream" with no creativity, no ethics, no individual thought and no humanity. Once you dehumanise people, it feels ok to ignore them.

If you fall in line with this prejudice, then all you need is just one or two impressive-sounding endorsements in Haramein's favour, and it looks like a unanimous win for Haramein.

Don't let this happen to you.

Patrick Edgmon said...

This is a blog by someone named Bob. I can't find any credentials for Bob? Does Bob have a degree? What does Bob do for a living? Is Bob even real?

Bob said...

Hello Patrick.

I'm going to repost a comment from earlier, if that's ok with you.

My experience of giving credentials on the internet is that people either (a) don't believe me (and why should they?), or (b) accuse me of being poisoned by education so that I can no longer recognise original thought, or (c) accuse me of making arguments from authority or lording credentials over people. I don't want to go there. I'm interested in careful reasoning and honest exploration of the wonders of nature - I'm not interested in who said what.

If you need credentials, there's a very straightforward path you can take. Go to any well-regarded university physics department, choose one or more of the physicists there whose credentials are acceptable to you, send them a polite email asking for their thoughts on Haramein. If you don't get many replies to emails, try visiting in person.

Lots of people in the physics community are very open and friendly towards people with a genuine interest in physics, if that's what you want to know.

If you have any questions about the content of what is said in this blog, then I'll be happy to talk with you about them. If it's actually me that you're interested in, then I'm very flattered by that, but I'll politely decline.

Anonymous said...

I can't help but imagine how we look at 'main stream' science today and compare this with attitudes from several hundred years ago and how everybody thought they knew everything about the universe back then....How can anybody say with absolute certainty Nassim can be so wrong?

Bob said...

My attitude is that if you don't understand what 'main stream science' is, it's best not to spout your prejudices about it. Whereas for those of us who do understand what Haramein is doing (especially if we can explain in detail how we know and are willing to try to do this), it's best to share this for others.

Understanding is a good thing. Prejudice (coming to decisions about a subject without basing them on understanding) is fashionable but something the world could do with less of.

That's where I'm coming from.

Yes, we can be absolutely certain Haramein is so wrong. Should you take that from me on faith? Of course not. You are perfectly free to spend some time gaining an understanding of the relevant areas of science and then read all the reasons I've given on the blog in the light of that understanding. Or you could just have an opinion without basing it on understanding. It's up to you.

Unknown said...

Dear Bob,

Recently a friend of mine pointed me to Nassim Haramein, who he blindly admires. I have been looking to debunk it for him and in the process came across a discrepancy in the "Quantum Gravity and Holographic Mass" article I would like to point you out. While knowing that I am opening a very old thread, I am interested in your opinion.

The equation (27), which supposedly leads to the main 'result' of the paper caugh my eye as there are occurrences of 'r' that partially cancel each other out: 'r' and 'r_p'. Immediately this looked suspicious, as I thought these were different quantities. Then I decided to assume that the missing subscript is just a typo and that the author meant the same value. Anyway, author states that he substitutes (5) and (6) into (26). I do not understand, what 'A' and 'V's are, but it seems like there is some inconsistency, as the is being introduced the factor of 4 in the numerator, that imho should not be there.

What do you think?


Bob said...

What Haramein is doing with his algebra is very simple, but he has presented it in an absurdly complicated way. The quantities r, A and V in (26) and (27) are the radius, surface area and volume of the event horizon of a black hole. They're defined in (12), (7) and (8) for the black hole Cygnus X-1, and they're related to each other in the way you'd expect for a sphere. In section 3, the quantities r_p, A_p and V_p are introduced to represent the particular case of a black hole with a Schwarzschild radius equal to the charge radius of the proton. These are the ingredients that go into (26) and (27). So all of those quantities should indeed have subscripts p.

Should the factor 4 be there?

On the one hand, if you follow carefully the algebra and the explanations given, yes, I think it is consistent.

On the other hand, the explanations are complete tripe. The factor of 4 has been fudged into the paper for one reason only: to make the number in (30) match the experimentally measured value, which the paper shows he clearly already knew, and which he has subsequently gone on to claim he predicted: an outright lie, which you will see his supporters have lapped up.

Since the whole of the paper is tripe, it's not possible to pinpoint where this fudge happened. (I can't tell if what we have here is tripe-flavoured fudge, or fudge-flavoured tripe - either way it's not a good thing.)

A good place to focus is equations (9) and (24). Both are supposed to be expressions for Haramein's "holographic mass", but both are entirely different. Noting (23), we see that the fraction R/η in (9) is replaced by twice its reciprocal 2η/R in (24).

He uses (9) when it suits him, and he uses (24) when it suits him. If he'd stuck to one, he would have got precisely nothing.

That factor of 2, together with another equally random factor of 2 that comes from choosing to use Planck-length diameter black holes rather than Planck-length radius ones - see note before (5), reiterated before (29) - is what gives him the 4 in (30).

As I've said before, the thing he has unwittingly calculated is simply four times the reduced Compton wavelength, not the proton's charge radius. They happen, by chance, to be similar.

One is a particular combination of fundamental constants, the kind of thing you can arrive at by accident if you randomly multiply and divide quantities that are based on fundamental constants. The other parametrises the distribution of charge around the proton, which is either derived by an extremely difficult quantum field theory calculation at the cutting edge of theoretical and computational physics, or by an extremely precise measurement at the cutting edge of experimental physics.

It's good to try to understand what Haramein has done. I hope more people will do what you are doing, and share it with others.

Unknown said...

Dear Bob,

Thank you a lot for your thorough answer. Now I see that A, V and r are just properties of a sphere.

Actually, this further convinces me that the place where the magical factor of 4 is first introduced is the equation (27). (Note that I am refering to the factor 4 in (27) rather than (29) which follows.)

In the numerator on the right side of (26) there is the term A/A_lc which should represent the ratio between the equator areas of two spheres of different sizes.

But then in (27) should

A/A_lc = (pi * r_p^2) / (pi * l_r^2) = r_p^2/l_r^2

instead of Haramein's

A/A_lc = (4 * pi * r_p^2) / (pi * l_r^2) = 4 * r_p^2/l_r^2


area = pi * radius^2

I can not see where this 4 comes from assuming r = r_p is the radius of a sphere. That the (29) should be 4 times smaller is just the consequence of the former.

Your note that this is consistent algebraically speaking adds to my confusion, but unless I have overlooked something, I think it is as simple as that.

Anyway, I agree with you when you say that with such nonsensical paper it is probably futile to look for a single fault. Still, if my thoughts are correct, than this seems to me like much more convincing evidence about the paper's deficiencies than trying to disentangle Haramein's rhetoric.

If you are not fed up with the whole thing yet, I would be interested if you agree with the above.



Bob said...

Hi Michal

I see where you're coming from, but here's why I think the algebra is consistent:

A = 4 * pi * r_p^2, because it's defined as the "surface area" of the event horizon.

A_lc = pi * l_r^2, because it's defined in (6) to be the "equatorial plane circular area" of a sphere with a radius of half a Planck length. Apparently the reason for this is that these spheres are going to be used to "tile" the event horizon. (Exactly how you're supposed to tile a surface using spheres is not addressed. Somehow all those equatorial circles just magically fit together without overlap. Haramein also appears to believe that he's doing holography when all he's doing is trying to tile a surface. It's dangerously easy for some people to convince themselves that they're doing X if they have no clue what X is.)

Anyway, I think that may be where you're missing the factor of 4.

It makes a nice change for me to be coming to Haramein's defence on something, however irrelevant it is :)

I addressed a couple of other claims for that paper on this page on Reddit, if you're curious.

Best of luck!

Elvis Christ said...

" For me, the only honest response to the presence of something that appears remarkable and is not understood is to say that it is remarkable and is not understood." It's my belief a research scientist would, at that point, form a hypothesis and test it, not dismiss the anomaly and walk away. That's probably the difference between science research for funding and science research for answers. Bob, you are a fraud.

Loek said...

Beautiful guideline. Only one problem with regards to the words of Nassime Haramein: they are well understood and appear not to be remarkable.

Bob said...

Precisely, Loek :) Haramein's physics claims are well-understood and unremarkable, except to his fans who are deeply committed to not hearing what anyone else says.

Elvis, you say I've "dismissed it and walked away", yet the blog post you've commented on is dedicated to investigating Haramein's claims in depth, and in the comments you can see that I've continued to discuss it in detail with anyone interested for the past six years.

It's right in front of you, you numpty! And this is only one of seven posts about Haramein's work on here.

I couldn't ask for a better example of how obliviously disconnected Haramein's supporters are from reality.

Anonymous said...

I think people like Nassim should be encouraged to speak about their theories and ideas. I've got no problem having someone who didn't go through the educational system for that specialty having a view. In fact without that I dare say we will never really evolve in science because we are bound or trapped by what is accepted today. I wouldn't take Nassim's popularity to heart, he has his role just as you have yours. I can understand you being angered by someone who hasn't got the paperwork to say they are a physicist apparently being more popular than you, but really that's a juvenile egotistical mindset and will hinder your own mind in time. Let's see how things work out in time. Put your mind and intelligence towards positivity it will serve Science, Humanity and indeed yourself in a more prosperous way.

Bob said...

My criticism of Haramein's false physics claims has nothing to do with paperwork. It's to do with them being false.

And it's to do with the fact that he knows what he is doing is false.

You're asking me be positive and encouraging about something I know to be dishonest and misleading.

And - like so many other people - you've resorted to making up pathetic motivations for me and then attacking those, which is cute, but very silly.

Haramein is great for people who habitually make shit up and don't know they're doing it (like you just did), and who don't care what the universe is actually like so long as someone can tell them a cool story about it, and dress it up in a way they like.

People who are interested in deep learning, questioning, looking beneath the surface, having respect for nature and the magnificent universe on its own terms - these people can see through his froth very quickly.

I have a great deal of respect for people who choose to look beneath the surface and continually ask themselves "this is great, but is any of it true or is he just telling tales here?"

To be a genuine truth-seeker, rather than a story-follower, that's all it takes.

Anonymous said...

I think this is to thebobathon, he is who wrote this?

I have a question for who ever wrote it.

Do you work for the oil companies or any energy company selling energy from fossil fuel?

After reading your responses and answers to questions here. I know you haven't debunked anything IMO. I can't believe a thing you have written. Maybe I should say you didn't convince me with common sense even. You might be good as a politician avoiding questions and dblspeak. I'm not trying to attack, just being honest.

As an example:

Loek said... The first one being where ever there is an action, there must be a reaction. Is the Big Bang understandable without any immediate reaction, like he is telling? 1:36 a.m., February 23, 2010

Bob said... I'm not sure what kind of 'reaction' you mean when you talk about the Big Bang. 2:18 a.m., February 23, 2010

Bob said... Newton's Third Law has no problem in dealing with explosions or any other event where matter flies in all directions. All it states is that whenever an impulse is given to one piece of matter sending it one way, an opposing impulse must have sent another piece of matter the other way, giving an overall momentum of zero.
The Big Bang isn't really an explosion, it's a space-time singularity, but there's no reason to suspect that total momentum imparted to the universe is anything other than zero. But (a) there's not really a 'before' to which you can compare the momentum 'after'; and (b) when there are very high speeds or high space-time curvature, Newton's Laws break down anyway - you need Einstein's field equations to describe what happens to momentum.

At extremely high energies (right after the Big Bang), quantum effects become significant and Einstein's equations break down too. 12:02 p.m., February 23, 2010

Not sure of the reaction? Never mentioning expansion once? It sounded like an intellectual skeptic who was from the genes of those in power at the time of the inquisition. Geocentric is the way it is, it's my way or the highway.

How can I make my thinking correct without really answering the question? Is that what's going though your head saying he has Newtons laws mixed up which make his whole theory incorrect or a fraud...

Excuse my forwardness.

Expansion is why we think there was a big bang. I have known since I was a kid the big bang isn't correct. I was taking finite math with imaginary numbers waiting for us to change as we did hundereds of years ago, however it was possible, where everyone finally belied the heliocentric reality. I don't think any new energy will be excepted as long as oil is in power.

Don't you think science is now bought just as government is? If any science bothers profits, money is available to change your mind, as everyone has a price.

It isn't yelling, it's how I copied it, not retyping it.

Bob said...

Hi, Anonymous. Thanks for your thoughts. I'll address some of the points you've raised.

"Do you work for the oil companies or any energy company selling energy from fossil fuel?" - No. If I were a self-interested fossil fuel disinformation agent, I wouldn't write blog posts on ecology and climate change like this one or this one or this one.

"you didn't convince me with common sense even. You might be good as a politician avoiding questions and dblspeak. - Ok. I don't really mind if you're not convinced. I'm not trying to sell anything, and you don't have to care. I'm genuinely trying to explain as straightforwardly as I am able, and I know many people have found it helpful. I can't bear rhetoric and misleading presentations, and I have no interest in doing any of that to anyone else.

Of course you have no reason to believe me, and I can't help that. That's ok.

"Not sure of the reaction? Never mentioning expansion once? It sounded like an intellectual skeptic ... it's my way or the highway." - The conversation you're quoting from was about Newton's third law of motion (every action has an equal and opposite reaction). It's a law of physics. It isn't my law of physics, it's Newton's. It isn't something I'm trying to impose on anyone else, it's a description of how the physical world works.

If you're interested in Newton's third law, you can find out about how it works from any physicist or engineer. Newton never said that every expansion has an equal and opposite contraction, and no physicist or engineer would say that, because the physical world doesn't work like that.

"I have known since I was a kid the big bang isn't correct." - I can't help you there. The universe isn't obliged to work according to your preconceptions. If you genuinely want to understand the universe as it really is, on its own terms not your terms, then you can investigate for yourself. But you have to be willing to let go of your preconceptions.

"Don't you think science is now bought just as government is? - No. All the scientists I know are deeply principled human beings with values and curiosity and a passion for getting to the truth. If you say this, then I suspect you don't personally know any scientists. They are human beings. Drop your preconceptions, open your heart and go and make friends with some of them.

(continued below)

Bob said...

(continued from above)

You quoted Tesla: "A VERY OPEN MINDED PERSON WILL TAKE ON BOARD EVERYONE’S THEORY ON LIFE AND DISMISS “NONE” - I don't agree with him. If I meet someone who thinks that all black people are worthless, then I don't have to take that on board at all. I should absolutely dismiss their interpretation.

I would say to them as I say to you: let go of your preconceptions. I know you hold your views strongly, but open your mind and open your heart to the fact that you may be mistaken. Go and meet some of these people and get to know them as human beings. Make friends with them. Strive to understand them on their own terms, not on your terms.

It would be absurd of me to take their views on board when I know from personal experience that they are mistaken. Especially when I know how much harm those kinds of deeply-held views can cause.

Another example: if I meet a man who was selling jars of sugar to the public and telling them that it is a magical crystal powder that will allow them to live for ever, it would be absurd of me to accept what he was telling me. And if he had lots of followers who were paying large sums of money for these jars, I think it would be wrong of me not to say anything to them.

Would his followers be angry with me for spoiling their dreams? Sure! Some of them would be very angry with me. What if it were you? Would you say something, if you knew that the salesman was lying? Not everybody would. Different people have different views on what they think they should do.

The world is filled with narratives. Some of them are very effective at keeping people away from ever finding truth. My view is that we should be shining light on these narratives and seeing them for what they are.

Haramein's narratives are very effective at keeping people away from understanding the universe, or protons, or anything to do with physics. And I'm trying to shine some light on it. I know my explanations won't work for everyone. Some people have found them helpful, others have not.

You can see that I don't have any adverts, I'm not selling anything, and I don't mind if you disagree.

You can also see that Haramein is selling a lot of things. For a lot of money. Talks, courses, retreats, merchandise, dvds, website access, lots and lots of things. And if you dispute his theories on his facebook page, you will be blocked.

You're right that one of us is a brand, a money-making and self-publicising and narrative-spinning institution. It isn't me.

Anonymous said...

let ,me end all this by saying that many real scientists are impressed by Nassim's work and have interest in him. Thank you very much.

Bob said...

No they aren't.

Nick M said...

"let ,me end all this by saying that many real scientists are impressed by Nassim's work and have interest in him."

Who gives a single rat's buttock what you think? The sad truth is that Haramein has been around for years and is no further on with his 'breakthroughs' than he was 10 years ago. His latest 'peer-reviewed' paper has been published for at least three years and no one cares.

You can dress him up as much as you like but the likelihood is that most people won't have even heard of Haramein.

arsenal said...

I havent followed all the conversation in this thread but generally it seems like evergreen battle-dialogue between metaphysicians and scientists; and its not easy to find a common ground;

I hope some of you would take some time to read a short text by Henri Bergson. The Nobel Price in literature is not an argument but for me his philosophy offers this common ground to move on; his argumentation is consistently logical, also using smart and beautiful metaphores for explanations; esecially about the main principles on pages 158-164. I would be happy if you point out where he might be wrong ... or any thoughts connected;

excuse my English as its not my native language;

arsenal said...

My emhasis is rather on dialogue than battle; and Im not here undercovered to defend Haramein (I have listened only one of his radio session, wanted to find out more and found this great discussion); sience has my full support and im sceptical about different esoteric waves ... but also im convinced that many breakthrough discoveries in physics, mathematics and bilogy have borrowed a lot from "intuition"; making an effort to see things from other unusual perspectives have been beneficial to siences ... as the scientific results have an important impact on cultural studies and philosophy; the best excample how different fields may interreact efficiantly is biosemiotics ...

so the discossion Haramein has unintentionally provoked has a great value in itself;

Bob said...

Science certainly relies on intuition, no question about that. What makes science different is the choice you make after your intuition has given you an idea.

(a) if you devote yourself to the question "so does this idea reflect reality, or is it just an idea that suits my preferences?" by finding as many ways as possible to compare your idea with observations of nature, then you are doing science.

(b) if you like your intuition, congratulate yourself on the wonderful idea you had, and devote yourself to finding ways to convince yourself further that it is true, then you are practising what all humans do so well: the art of self-delusion.

You seem very nice, but I don't really care what you're convinced about unless that conviction has come about by (a) rather than (b). One look at the world will tell you that humans can - and do - convince themselves of all kinds of absurd things.

My hope is that the discussion of Haramein might lead some people to understand that relying on intuition alone can lead us far from reality, and that this can be a fascinating indicator of their own tendencies to self-delusion. If discussing his ideas has achieved this, then I'll agree that it is worthwhile. I do hope so.

arsenal said...

Well said;

Having an intuition might be as simple as having a dream, but developing it into a theory recuires much effort, hard work and consistency ... and the result may be misleading, „wrong“ as failure in the translation process (how to translate a dream into a novel, movie or scientific text);

science has much credit on how it self-organises on the search for the truth among other fields of human creation; science is effective and useful in practice; still historically we see that science „has always been wrong“ compared to nowadays; and i mean it neutral way; there has always been more or less collective self-delusion how our „ideas reflect the reality“ and it is so also today and will be in the future; scientists as human beings are self-deluded aswell ... sometimes its even harder for them to notice it, to question their eyes as the mirror of the world, because they consider themselves as experts;
so common-sense people might have self-delusional intuitions about reality but not enough knowledge and tools to work on; scientist have more tools and knowledge but there is natural tendency to stay stucked on this knowledge on a narrow field, which weakens the potential of intuitions;

also we are stuck on old metaphors which guides the way we percieve the world and manifest how we interact with it ... for excample „our ideas that reflect the reality“ and many others; these are not so useful anymore, when we talk about relative thory on even more about potential unified field theory or multy-dimensional space;

again i do not defend Haramein, who seems more like poet than scientist, but some of his „dreams“ may be developed on by those who have more scientific competence and tools to use;

arsenal said...

Stephane said...

I had an out of body experience 2 years ago. It was a very, very physical experience. I was able to repeat the experiences 3 times. It got me scared and i never tried again. My point is, i was more of a Dawkins " followers" before these experiences, very skeptical in nature. I am glad that this happened to me since it opened a new paradigm of reality. Unfortunately, i soon realised that the line of inquiries I was taking was increasingly marginal. Further experiences of "para-normal" nature happen after these experiences. Obviously there are no proof, just a testimony . The Universe seems to be perceptual in nature (therefore). But what struck me immediatly and that was a game changer, is the remarkable easiness my extraordinary experience was getting dismissed/ignored and forgotten by friends. I have found very little comfort in "scientific" paper regarding OBE and soon had to rely on fringe reading which made me really unhappy at the time; what kept me going was " intellectual integrity" since i had easily dismissed fringe ideas before these experience, i could not honestly not further explore these fringe theories. I am now convinced the world is different from the way it is painted by science or religion. I had the benefit of having personal experience and not everyone will have this chance. I wish you good luck in trying to dismiss Haramein ideas, do not through the baby out with the bath water however, your education and scientific background might prevent you for seeing what else there might be...

Bob said...

Hi Stephane

I agree that there's no grounds for being dismissive of out of body experience, or paranormal observations, or even alien abductions or sightings. These can be fascinating and powerful and life-changing experiences.

I don't know that these things have no objective content, but I do know that there's a profound absence of objective evidence for any of them, despite the numbers of people who report them.

Some people don't care whether or not they have any objective content. In that case, the conversation stops there, you're experience is your experience and it has nothing to do with me or the physical and biological world that scientists study. It has no scientific content, or interest, so there's no debate and there should be no disagreement with scientists. You have your experience, you don't care about whether or not it has any objective content, so you can't pretend that it has any scientific relevance. That's all fine, and there's no disagreement between your view and the scientific perspective, neither of us is intruding on each others' views, and we can all shake hands and be happy.

So I wouldn't disagree with your experience, but I would disagree if you make claims of objective content for your experience that go against the findings of science.

Where I would disagree is if you have an experience, and then you convince yourself "I had an experience of X, this means the world is like X, this means the universe is like X".

Your experience tells you about your experience. Not about the universe. It's tempting to believe our feelings are a good guide to the universe, especially when they're profound feelings, but they really are not.

When you say "the Universe seems to be perceptual in nature", really you mean "my experience of the universe seems to be perceptual in nature".

It's human nature to want to extrapolate from what we feel and conclude that we now intimately understand something about the universe. My suggestion is that the universe is bigger than that. Your experience is your experience. It isn't the universe.

I know some people insist that their experiences and their intuitions are so powerful that they simply must be truths about the entire nature of reality. Look around the world and you'll see human beings doing this all the time. They all think different things, and they're all utterly convinced they're right about the universe, that their intuitive sense of it true.

I strongly believe we shouldn't dismiss people's experiences, because powerful experiences are a big deal. Human consciousness is amazing - it's rich and full and teeming with life, and it's different for everyone. Nobody has any right to dismiss these things.

The purpose of science, when it's done wisely, is to recognise that our intuitions are very easily biased, very easily prejudiced, very easily misled, and can very easily be convinced of something beyond any doubt, especially by powerful experiences. Science requires us to step aside from this and look for insights that don't rely on our intuition and our personal convictions - to look beyond our personal perceptions for insights into Nature itself, on its own terms.

Bob said...

Science is not everyone's cup of tea (many people have a visceral dislike of it, sometimes again because of bad experiences, which is a shame), but I think it's worth thinking carefully about what science is attempting to do.

Your experiences, reported just as they are, won't ever come into conflict with science properly done. If you extrapolate and say that your personal experience qualifies you to tell scientists that they're wrong, then you're missing the point of science, and probably missing the point about your experience too.

Experiences are experiences. They aren't an exclusive VIP ticket to the view on the reality of the universe. This isn't to minimise or dismiss them at all. It's just presenting a tautology: what you perceive is what you perceive. It can give you powerful insight into the nature of your perceptions. This is no small thing, whatever anybody says! It really isn't. But it isn't the universe.

Claim that you know about the universe because you had an experience, and you've crossed a line that I don't think you gain anything by crossing.

I hope that's a useful thing to think about.

One of the things Haramein does is he amplifies people's convictions that their intuitions and preferences and prejudices and personal experiences give them the right to claim to understand the universe better than people who study it scientifically. People like having the right to live in a universe that suits their convictions! I suggest that if you want to understand more about the universe - just as if you want to understand more about anything or anyone - this is completely the wrong way around.

arsenal said...

people are all blind; some have rare powerful experiences and they believe, that this is the insight to the deepest secrets of the universe; scientists believe their blindness stands on objective grounds and is therefore more close to the reality;
personal experience does'nt need a theory to base on and unless it does'nt make up a new arbitrary theory (might be the case of Haramein) its a real experience;
but scientists must give a good reason for their ground beliefs and assumptions; still they fail to answer several questions about everyday human experiences;

Bob said...

No, scientists don't do that.

Science is the study of those aspects of human experience that reliably present themselves as objective.

No belief is required.

Of course scientists do have beliefs and assumptions, because scientists are human, but to do good science relies on putting these aside, with as much awareness as possible, and being extremely careful and fully open and honest about assumptions.

Science does not intrude on your everyday experiences because there is no reliable scientific model for consciousness. Consciousness is a rich and wonderful place, and it's all yours.

But if you're telling me that your consciousness is a more reliable source of truth about the nature of the universe than science itself, then I suggest that you are going too far. What your consciousness tells you about is the nature of your consciousness. If you perceive the universe a certain way, that tells you about the nature of your perception of the universe.

Take ownership of your experience. It is yours. Science doesn't have any claim on it.

Don't use your current perceptions to swipe at a vast, mature and sophisticated sphere of human discourse that you don't have a great depth of understanding about. If you are not motivated to deepen your understanding of science, then let it be. Allow it to be what it is - something far bigger and far more profound than you can imagine.

Prejudice is cheap.

arsenal said...

I see the science (to siplify – lets take just physics which caims to be the most basic science) dealing with „objective“ reality is just one field of human activity; its one sided practice and description of reality; it has proven itself extreamly successful on this field which gives the illusion that the assumptions its based on are true; so science can be and has been succsessful to great limits based on assumptions which can be questioned;

scientific materialistic world-view is very natural and relatively easy for people to understand because we have materialistic body (although very complex organisation of more simple organisations); evolutionary it seems that our material and biological body precedes to our conciousness; but we can also assume, that conciousness have also evolved ... finally to the point we invented launguage and later on the science; so its naturat that the evolved conciousness takes the materialistic world and the sipmle laws discovered for granted;

materialistic world-view is our habit, we are naturally stucked in it, we are „addicted“ to this view and our bodily well-being depends on it; sooner or later we have to move on to keep this scientific effeciency; scientific results have very much helped philosophy and other human sciences but not so much vica versa ... i see very much potential if scientists had more competense on philosophy, biology and semiotics;

for individual being his conciousness is the first given reality ... before the mental construction of material world and sciences; one could logically question the material world around as it seems but not question his conciousness; conciousness is more fundamental and universal then sciences as these are products of this (also collective) conciousness; thats why it is difficult if not impossible for „objective“ science (as its just one narrow field) to define or explain conciousness in satisfying way; surely scientists cant find any trace of conciousness if they could take apart all the human brain and nervous-system into smallest imaginable elements;

we dont have to go „too far“ to freshen up our scientific practices ... still we need most of its achievements and traditional methods but also more dialogue between other, „more soft“ disciplines as these are olso products of our conciousness;

Bob said...

Hi arsenal.

Yes, physics is the study of "objective" reality.

Let's make a very careful statement (as I tried to earlier):

Physics deals with any part of reality that has reliably shown itself to behave exactly as if it were objective.

Physics is a collection of information and about the patterns among phenomena that are reliably and unambiguously observable by anyone.

You talk about "the illusions that its conclusions are true". Again, I think you are misunderstanding what physics has to tell us. Physics is not materialism. Physics does not assert any materialist truths. I am a physicist, and I am not a materialist. There is no contradiction.

There is no reason for you to carry around stereotypes of who believes what and who is addicted to what. Let them go.

You also have no reason to assert that science doesn't engage a great deal in constructive two-way dialogues philosophy. It does.

It's easy from a philosophical point of view to argue that consciousness should be fundamental and the material world could be nothing but an illusion. But even if the material world is an illusion, the laws of physics still apply.

Significant aspects of the material world, illusion or not, behave reliably as if they are objective. The laws of physics don't care whether or not they are real.

My point is this: if you have a theory about the world, there are two possibilities. Either your theory says something about the parts of reality that behave as if they are objective and are described reliably and precisely by the laws of physics, or it does not.

If it does, then your theory had better agree with the laws of physics. Because we know lots of things about what those parts of reality do. They're observable, they have reliably predictable and well-known patterns in how they behave. Centuries of study has revealed powerful constraints on what they can and cannot do.

If it does not, then your theory can say whatever it likes, but you cannot make any claims about your theory showing that anything in physics is false. The only way to show anything in physics to be false is by presenting something that is unambiguously and reliably observable by anyone.

Someone's personal and powerful experiences can give insights of the second kind, insights that don't clash with what physics tells us. To believe there is a clash there, you have to make two big mistakes: (a) misunderstand what physics stands for, and (b) extrapolate the conclusions you've come to from your personal experience into conclusions about the universe.

You seem keen to hang on to a belief that you have a broader perspective on physics, despite not having studied the subject or the philosophy or history of the subject in depth, and that physicists should learn from you rather than the other way around.

If you want to argue that some physicists could use more understanding of philosophy, and that some other physicists should be more careful in presenting their conclusions, especially in articles and books, then I agree with you. Physicists are human, all humans can be careless, and even the most careful communication won't reach everyone exactly as it was intended.

If you read books or articles on physics, and you feel that something is missing, then you are right. But possibly not for the reasons you think.

The books and the articles and the public talks are the bubbles on the surface of physics. There is much, much more beneath the surface, where great care is taken and very careful and rigorous discussions and debates take place, the details of which would never make it into books and articles for non-scientists. If you were to choose to explore those details, the subject is open for you. If you don't choose to, then I think it would be wise not to feel too entitled to judge it.

goodkawz said...

I find myself here through a series of detours,
originating from debates which involve science minded people demanding scientific proofs for non-scientific assertions.

Things that are "non-falsifiable" are not necessarily false or meaningless. Some are axiomatic necessities.

That said, I appreciate the article and the comments. Which I am thankful to have perused BEFORE checking out this Nassim guy.

So, Now I go to see if it's "W.S. Walcott Medicine Show". ?

Regardless of my conclusion (yet to be determined) on Nassim, ...

Thanks for the article and all the discussion it's provoked.

Anonymous said...

Two interesting points are made in parts A and B of point 4. A "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." B "Scientists can be guilty of narrow thinking" It goes on to distinguish these characteristics from those of the Ideal scientist, but it doesn't attempt to prove which of these two, the ideal and other, are more prominent, or engender the most significant effect. An example could be the Brans-Dicke Theory of which even though it is in complete agreement with the observational evidence is assumed to be less correct than the General Theory of Relativity, having the effect in general of limiting the potential effort of physicists in proposing theories which involve a variable G or faster then light travel. This favoritism would seem to derive from an inherent dogmatism in science, coming most likely from the imbalance between the desire to find absoluteness e.g. the search for empirical data and mathematical formulism, and the profoundly objective nature of a mind that can put these two things to the side... momentarily.

Bob said...

Hi Anonymous

"This favoritism would seem to derive from an inherent dogmatism in science" - this is a very easy conclusion to jump to, but it isn't one justifiable. There are so many other reasons why one theory of gravitation might be favoured over another by the people whose working lives depend on using gravitation.

Modern gravitation, including GR, BD, MOND and many others, is a mature discipline. Physicists have had many decades to try out these theories and actually use them for practical work, such as precision orbital dynamics in the solar system or observational astrophysics and cosmology. These people don't favourite GR out of dogma, they favourite it because it's so much easier to use than any of the other theories, which makes it a much better tool for anyone wanting to develop a powerful in-depth understanding, and there isn't a jot of evidence contradicting it.

Are there people working their asses off trying to find observational evidence that contradicts GR and would lend support for one of the alternatives or modifications of it? Of course! There are thousands of these people. I know some of them. There have been tons of observations that could have proved BD to be superior to GR, and all have failed. Have they given up? Of course not.

It's true that no observation has ever proved BD false, just as no observation has ever proved string theory false, but that doesn't make it a good theory. Putting it aside in favour of a simpler, more elegant, more useful and equally precise and powerful theory is not inherent dogmatism, it's just pragmatism. Physics is hard enough as it is. Giving equal favour to overcomplicated theories without a very good empirical reason would be insane.

Anonymous said...

Physicists may actually go home at night and dream of faster then light speed travel, where they don't have to wait for some conclusive proof that it exists. It is their persona n public that that seems a bit on the conservative side, but behind the scenes they could be a much more freer soul, except of course they don't consider the existence of souls possible without a device to measure such a phenomena. But seriously, when it comes time for them to completely severe their allegiance or reverence to GR and to assume a completely objective mind to the possibility of things such as VLS we can only hope for the best. It is about maximizing their innovative and creative selves, and even though we don't have proof to what extent they are achieving that, such as a neurological test, it is ironic that their openness or lack of in acknowledging the potential betterment in this area to be an estimation of how well they are doing.

Bob said...

Ok, that's enough of your silly prejudices, thank you.

You can't genuinely pretend to have a depth of understanding of the topics you're sharing your opinions about, and you can't pretend to have experience in using theories to do practical physics. Opinion without understanding is prejudice.

It fascinates me how so many people believe themselves to be an authority on what the world's physicists should do and think and say about physics. A little thought ought to be enough for them to realise how f***ing idiotic this is. But it's a little thought that their egos don't allow them to have.

Back in the real world, there are a small number of theoretical physicists who do work on VLS theories, as there are with all kinds of other 'non-mainstream' ideas. If any of these theories do prove genuinely promising for physics in general, they would be taken up more widely, and if they don't, then they won't.

Would it be more 'creative' if physicists stopped weighing up ideas for themselves and adopted ideas that a bunch of people on the internet think are innovative? Er, no.

Anonymous said...

I think you are full of shit, dude.

Bob said...

Thank you for your contribution.

MB said...

Hi Bob - I found a copy of the "The Schwarzschild Proton" on the AIP website. So are they just publishing research papers willy nilly? AIP has it in their "AIP Conference Proceedings" journals, which claims it contains "report findings presented at many of the most important scientific meetings around the world. Published proceedings are valuable as topical status reports providing quick access to information before it appears in the traditional journal literature." What do you make of that? Best, Michelle

Bob said...


It's a good question, and well worth looking into.

Conference Proceedings are not journals, they are just records of what happened at a conference.

Some conferences do contain material that is genuine and important science, so the claim on the AIP site is fine. My living room contains genuine chocolates, and I can see an apple in my room. Does that mean the apple is made of chocolate?

AIP are not responsible for checking the content. If you were to organise a conference, then you would also organise the review process. AIP don't do it.

Here's the page on the AIP website where they explain how to write to them to get a quote for your conference. You tell them how big the conference is, they will give you a price. The people at your conference present papers, AIP make them into a book, the people at your conference go away happy, and anyone in the world can access what they wrote.

As you say, published proceedings can be valuable for quick access before material appears in the traditional (peer-reviewed) literature. Publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journal may take three to six months. Perhaps even a year. "The Schwarzschild Proton" appeared in the conference proceedings in 2010.

There are plenty of good questions you can ask if you're interested in this. Good luck.

Read more in this note from five years ago. Also this one and this one.

Haramein's paper is on physics, so if you want to know whether or not the content is genuine physics or just someone pretending to do physics, all you have to do is contact a physicist (there are thousands around the world, their email and phone numbers are public, you can write to them, phone them, meet them in person - there could be some in a university near you who would be happy to meet with you), show them Haramein's paper and ask them if it is genuine or if it is pretend.

Best wishes

Anonymous said...

You think you are a scientist because you teach physics and maths to students? You should learn to listen carefully to your Opponent before "debunking" him. Haramein said the Center Point is where the spiral tries to go but never reaches. It is obvious that he has more clue about phi spiral than you have. LOL

Bob said...

Haramein is not my opponent. I'm not playing a game. I have listened very carefully to what he says, and I'm explaining why I think it is false. There's a whole post on it here.

I'll listen carefully to what you say too, if you want to say anything relevant.

Christian Z Barnes said...

Hi Bob
This thread is an epic undertaking. I've rad through, but could you please, without any rhetoric or humour, explain to me in a sentence or two, (no epic required) why I should read Hawking's theoretical postulations and predictions and not Haramein's. Thanks.

Christian Z Barnes said...

Also any links to your own theoretical work would be most gratefully received.

Bob said...

You should read whatever interests you.

Hawking has a very strong understanding of the solid, non-speculative physical laws that all experimental physicists rely on, and a very strong understanding of all the experimental results relevant to his field. If he didn't, then he wouldn't be able to compare his own theoretical ideas with the real world to see if they are consistent. If he couldn't do this, then physicists who do have the relevant understanding would quickly notice that his ideas were not reliable, and his ideas would not be used.

Haramein has none of these things. Physicists only need one look at his writing to see this. Nobody in the physics community will ever have any interest in what he says, because it's very clear to any physicist that he has very little understanding of the subject.

Physicists, engineers, etc. need people they can rely on to discuss the physical reality they have to work with every day. If you were a physicist with a special interest in the information theory of black holes, you would be paralysed if you didn't read Hawking's work.

We can't choose what things are true about the universe based on whether we like the people who tell us about them. We have to put our preferences aside and do some work. Find out which ideas have been relied on successfully for years by physicists working with the real world, and which ones have not, and take it from there.

Douglas Dobson said...

the answer is as simple as looking for a method to contact Nassim on his Resonance Project page, there's no contact method anywhere, he doesn't want your input, not interested, but there are more than five different ways to donate to the experience project, he wants your money. So he wants your money and if you want to know what he's doing with it, there's no way to find out, and you would think he would be open to communicate with people who also have incredible physics theories, but nope, only interested in the donations, now what does that tell all you intelligent people about Nassim Haramein?

Bob said...

Thanks for that observation, Douglas. Early on, he would engage in discussions on his Facebook page, but those kind of discussions and forums are now exclusively for paying members. Which means a minimum of $72 per month to be a member, or $384 to register for level one of the delegate program.

He's also raised $314k from his fans for a film (that has yet to appear). Unlike more respectable kick-starters, it has no deadline, so that you can carry on adding to their funds for ever.

And there are lecture tours, dvds, retreats, merchandise...

So it's just like a regular physics department, only with a ton of shiny schemes for making money out of fans, and without any scientific output (no papers that any other physics department in any other university recognises as physics).

A recipe for success, of a sort!

Fritzzzz said...

Hey Bob,
I wanted to say hi, and thank you.

I've been watching a lot of Nassim Haramein's talks lately, and was really impressed.
I wanted to check out about his online program before buying it, and came across this post and your other posts on the subject.

At first i was really angry (with you), i was sure that you were probably paid to write that, or it's only your oppinion and you probably have some sort of interest in attacking him, and i thought, well i can't decide to turn down everything he says because of what one guy writes about him... i wasn't able to find other rational comments on this subject anywhere, nor any info anout this delegate program he offers whatsoever.
I also simply don't know enough to judge or even understand the only paper i found he ever published.

Then i saw you have been updating this post for six years. i started to read and see if maybe anything has changed, maybe what he talks about in 2014 didn't happen back in 2010...
Basically, for six years no one was even able to come up with one logical argument to defend him specifically against the claim that you are making - that he is not a scientist or physicist or mathematician (maybe that was the only reason i took him seriously), and you just had to repeat yourself and copy/paste the simple answers you already handled years before...
He didn't publish anything that has long been waited for, he doesn't have any new technologies, he doesn't have anything, anything informative at all on his website, nothing about what he is doing currently. Just a link to rent a feature film, and a link to buy an online study program that some people are filmed being preety happy with.

I mean, sorry guys, it's sad, for me too, i'm just a regular guy, no scientist, and what he says is really nice and warm and easy and simple and made me think about unification with the cosmos and stuff, and maybe it's a good thing.

but let's understand the point of this post - he is obviously not practicing any kind of presice science BUT STILL SAYS HE IS.
If he would've just said that he doesn't need to because maybe you can throw all the old books to the trash with his discoveries, that was even more credible than claiming to be a world class scientist when you are not just to get more people to believe you.
really, sad for me, but let's take the good from this and just not say that it has been proven mathematically...

So really Bob, thank you for opening my eyes, and maybe for being the only serious guy online that has the patience to explain this subject to people that just can't see. Also thank you for understanding how important it is that intellegent people don't go blind because of one man's pyrotechnics.

So anyway, to sum it up to a tteny weeny weeny teeny little dots
1/ Thanks again
2/ I really want to study real physics online. i have the basic background of algebra and basic mechanics. any recommendations?
3/ Is there anything even remotely true or genuine about "the vacuum is also made of plank fluctuation in higher density"?

could you believe this alien bulsit on top of all of this?

IOU 320$

Bob said...

Hi Fritzzzz, thanks for your thoughts :)

If you want to study physics online, there are hundreds of options to suit different temperaments, different backgrounds and different interests.

If you have basic algebra, calculus, and some familiarity with matrix algebra, complex numbers and maybe differential equations, Leonard Susskind's Theoretical Minimum is excellent and covers a huge amount of ground. But no single course is ideal for everyone.

What do you actually want to learn? Here's an excellent place to start thinking about which topics you want to get into, and what that might involve:

So You Want To Learn Physics...

I don't know what "the vacuum is also made of plank fluctuation in higher density" means. It doesn't seem to make any kind of scientific sense. If you want to know about the vacuum, you could start by watching Jim Al Khalili's "Nothing".

There are certainly fluctuations in a vacuum - or at least, that is certainly one way to think of what is observed in particle physics. The only honest answer to what is going on at the Planck level is that nobody knows, because it is not yet accessible to any experiment or observation of nature.

Words are Magic said...

Hello Bob,

Very interesting read both the article and the comments made by various people. I have heard if you you are a genuine physicist then you will get your article or findings published in a scientific journal. As the content in a scientific journal is peer reviewed. Is this enough to validate the authenticity of the works of a person ??
or does he need to do more than just that. How will someone get the approval of the scientific community like Nassim who doesn't have any academic credentials. He may not have a degree but his works maybe right. Also I am not saying Nassim is genuine, I am just asking a question. How is it decided that your scientific research is correct or pseudoscience.

Bob said...

Hi Words are Magic, and thanks for your interest. These are good questions, and definitely worth asking around and reflecting on. If you look through the comments on this blog you'll find many others have asked the same thing.

The point of this blog is to illustrate that Haramein's ideas are not science, they have no scientific content, they are wholly a misuse of scientific language to impress non-scientists.

Obviously I'm not going to ask a scientific journal to publish something for me that I don't think is science.

If other scientists were treating his work as science, and I wanted to argue that his work was nonsense, then yes I would submit my argument to a scientific journal for them to read. But other scientists are not treating his work as science. Other scientists have no interest in his work, because they can see it isn't science just as clearly as I can. They're scientists. They can't afford not to know bullshit when it is staring them in the face.

Haramein has had his work published by ScienceDomain International. You can check them out for yourselves as to whether any scientists treat their journals as reliable. You can also search online collections of scientific papers for his work, for example the massive CERN document server.

All he has to do to get the approval of the scientific community is do some science. Doing what he is doing now, which is playing at being a scientist for the benefit of non-scientific fans, is not likely to get him accepted by people who need to know the genuine language of science for their daily working lives and need to know how to tell a novel scientific perspective from a fake one.

But as I say to everyone, don't rely on me. Go to your nearest physics department, or email or phone them, find a physicist, preferably one who works with protons and knows them intimately from years of experience. Show them Haramein's work, ask them whether this might be someone doing genuinely novel physics or whether it's bogus. If you like you can show them my blog, and ask them whether they think it's a narrow-minded attack or whether it looks like someone with a depth of understanding of the subject trying to shed light on what Haramein is really doing.

Alternatively, like the majority of Haramein's fans, you could decide that your own personal conviction that there's no reason to reject his work is all that matters, and nobody has the right to say any different.

That's fine. Personal conviction is exactly the basis on which faiths are run, and Haramein's following is exactly that.

Unknown said...

Hi Bob.. your few attempts at trying to seem smart about the big bang failed miserably. I'm no scientist but the way I see it is you'd have to be an idiot to believe there was a big bang.. or you'd have to at least conclude there's an infinite number of big bangs.. The idea just seems... silly and boring. Nevertheless, your points on it were among the worst I've heard from, smart people ;) oh yeah... and you're a dick, and you're obviously jealous of Hussein. I bet it enrages you he has millions of fans and your own students fall asleep when you talk and you've never written anything of value anyone's read hey?

Bob said...

Thanks, Unknown. You're right - scientists need to start assessing scientific claims based on whether or not they sound feasible to you personally, and whether or not you find them entertaining. Then they'd have more fans. After all, having fans is the whole point of science.

As for my suggestion that being a Haramein supporter requires you to be completely oblivious to the difference between science and story-telling, you certainly put that hypothesis to rest.

Sorry, I mean "Hussein", of course. Be patient, I'm still new to this not-idiotic, not-boring and not-silly reality that you've introduced me to.

Tell me more fun and true things about the universe!

«Oldest ‹Older   801 – 943 of 943   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

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