Saturday, February 13, 2010

Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage? (intro)

(Click here if you don't need introducing to Nassim Haramein.)
Recently I've been impressed by the rise to internet fame of Nassim Haramein. He's lauded as a multi-disciplinary thinker, as a scientist, as an inspirational speaker, and as director of research of The Resonance Project.

From the following that he's developed, it's fair to say that he's touched a lot of people's lives. There are a lot of people out there who really think the world of him, and it's not hard to see why. His talks and seminars delve into the heart of reality – the universe, ancient history, particle physics, sacred geometries, mathematics, consciousness – and through the clarity and geniality of his delivery he seems to actually light up his audiences with new ideas.

A brief internet search of his name seems to show only glowing reports. Inevitably, with a little more delving, there are also detractors. There are also a good deal who are curious but unsure, wondering if this guy is for real. He certainly polarises people: a lot of people seem to think he's a nutcase; and there are a lot of people who think he's a genius, and will hold to it in the face of any argument.

I'm not setting out to argue with those who have already made up their minds one way or the other (and who are possibly only looking here to see whether I'm a good guy or a bad guy, and not that interested in what I might say otherwise). We're each entitled to our opinions. But for those who are genuinely curious, I think it's worthwhile taking a look at what he does.

I'd better put my cards on the table now, though. My view is that Nassim Haramein has very little insight into reality from any sort of scientific perspective. I'd like to explain why I believe that any claims on his part of being a physicist, of using any scientific method, or of having any understanding of mathematical principles at all, are utterly bogus. I'd like to give you what I believe are very sound reasons and evidence as to why I say this, and why it is important.

The process of discovering and rigorously testing truths about the universe is something I rate very highly as part of my personal values. Because of this, my personal view is that if he is indeed deliberately selling himself to the public as being at the forefront of scientific knowledge despite having very little scientific insight at all, then he is misleading and even manipulating people for fame and for financial gain. That would be a serious matter of abuse of trust, and it would make him a fraud.

Of course, not everyone holds the scientific method so dear to their hearts. I'm telling you this only to let you know where I stand, not because I think you should agree with me.

I don't want to argue about his qualities as a new age inspirational speaker, or about whether or not he's a great character, or whether or not his ideas make some people happy, or whether or not the pyramids were in fact conceived by people from another planet or anything like that. I only want to look at his scientific claims, to see if he is who he says he is, or whether he's merely manufactured an image and is misusing the language of science to give an air of authority to whatever comes into his head.

Please continue to the main post:


Anonymous said...

Bob said...

Yes, thanks, a random link to more examples of the sort of nonsense I mean.

What mathematician or physicist would ever say that the third dimension is built up from a finite number of two-dimensional planes? Or that the finite three-dimensional cluster of chalk particles on a blackboard is a zero-dimensional point? It's a symbol. As usual, Nassim makes straw men and then laughs at them; and all he's dismissing is his own misunderstanding of what is meant by dimensions. Rob Bryanton here obviously thinks this is very deep and perceptive of him.

And people have been saying Nassim's theories are 'in the process of being peer-reviewed' for the last ten years. Think about what this means. If I've entered a race over and over for ten years, and the best I can say after all this time is "I've entered a race", is that a good thing?

Using (or misusing) terms like fractal and infinite and Hausdorff and dimensions and helix doesn't endow what someone says with insight. It just makes people who don't really understand what they mean go "woo". Maybe it makes them feel they're part of something that is challenging our perception of reality, and I guess that must be nice. To a mathematician, it's blatantly vague and undefined empty waffle.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess...

whenisnow said...

I understand that Haramein's metaphysics are over-simplistic and conflated, but it looks like his collaborative work in physics is receiving some positive support.

"Nassim Haramein’s most recent scientific paper, 'The Schwarzschild Proton[*],' received an award at the University of Liège, Belgium during the 9th International Conference CASYS'09 (Computing Anticipatory Systems). Chosen by a panel of 11 peer reviewers, Haramein's paper won the prestigious 'Best Paper Award' in the field of 'Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation.' This significant paper... describes the nuclei of an atom as a mini black hole, where protons are attracted to each other by gravitation rather than some mysterious undefined 'strong force.' This radical new view of the quantum world produces a unification of the forces and appropriately predicts measured values for the nucleon of atoms.'

*The paper:

I'm no physicist or mathematician, therefore my sincere wish is that detractors of Haramein will stop shutting him down based on his willy-nilly talks and instead study his research papers, do the math, and point out the obvious relevance or irrelevance of "Resonance Project" efforts.

Do his on-paper results seriously lack predictive, scientific method certified qualities?

Bob said...

Hi whenisnow.

Please click on the link at the end of this post, and I think you'll see that I've already dealt in detail with all of your points.

If you don't think I have, or if you still have questions after you've read it, then please say.

Anonymous said...

What he is saying is that "his science" makes a mockery of "your science"... and vice versa ... however, it is not a question, really, of being right, but disovering what works... essentially, science works in the box... he is working on things outside of the box, but from within the box, if you get my drift... certainly, when discussing black holes, big bangs and other such esoteric things, he is no more a chartlatin than, say, a scientist who offer "A brief history of time..." or "The selfish Gene.."

The field is limitless... just cherry pick the stuff you like and can deal with... leave the rest on the table


Bob said...

That's a very peculiar way of looking at the world, my friend. Science is nothing to do with cherry-picking the stuff you like, it's about using rigorous investigation to distinguish truth from fantasy.

If you're only capable of believing what you like, then fair enough, but I think that's a real shame. It means you're closed off (in your box) from everything that doesn't fit your preferences. I can see a lot of people like Haramein and his ideas. And they defend him on that basis (because it's the only basis they have - "I like it, so who are you to say it's not true?").

Haramein doesn't make a mockery of science, he merely makes himself look ridiculous to anyone who knows what science means; and meanwhile impresses lots of people who can't tell research from story-telling.

You're right about it being about discovering what works. Has Haramein discovered anything that works? I'm interested if you think he has.

I don't want to try to defend Hawking or Dawkins, but I will say that their books are their interpretations of their life's work, written for the public. Behind each of the two books is a mass of serious, solid research by the authors, built on the work of thousands of scientists over centuries. This is research that is available for anyone to look at, that has been scrutinised by thousands of scientists, and that has yielded masses results with real predictive power or educational value - things that work, and things that help people understand other things that work.

Haramein does neither. He disparages theories that work, and the scientists who believe them, and puts forward empty ideas with zero predictive power based on zero (or demonstrably very poor) scientific research. And as I've tried to show (and could easily show plenty more), he REALLY doesn't understand some very basic things.

There are people out there who CAN explain how things are and make it fascinating, make it accessible so people can "deal with" it, who know what they're talking about, and who tell the truth.

Great communicators at the moment include Neil Tyson, Brian Cox, Michio Kaku. There are plenty more. I'd recommend you check them out. And of course the late Carl Sagan.

In the end, I guess, we will only believe who we trust. If we don't trust the scientists who devote their life to an uncompromising rigorous investigation of the truth, but we do trust some smiley guy who tells pretty stories and manipulates his audience into believing that he's something he's not, then that's a real shame. It really is. I sincerely wish it didn't have to be that way.

Anonymous said...

See, with respect, I see you as operating from within a very tight set of rules... really boxed in... nothing wrong with that, per se, save that it might hinder your view of people who are, shall we say, more expansively orientated... I believe, indeed I am certain, that Universe is a lot stranger and far more exciting than the discovery of "things" ... Universe is a scenario with an apparent philosophy... it is not all "applied science"... so there is room aplenty for all sorts... Furthermore, nobody seeks to stop "real" scientists from doing whatever they do, even if their combined efforts on based on such nonesenses as straight lines, points and continuums... or, ha ha ha, big bangs.... No, science discovers daily that it is on a curved path that is taking back to the humanities ... and a warm welcome to you all!!!!

Bob said...

I'm sorry you see it that way.

It doesn't strike me as "expansively orientated" to say that anything goes, or that anyone can claim to be anything, or not to care about "boxed in" things such as the meaning of words or whether or not someone knows what they're talking about or whether or not there's any truth to an idea.

Letting whoever do and say whatever they like all sounds very nice. But why call it science? It's about as far from science as it's possible to get. It's all very inclusive and lovely, but it really amounts to not caring about whether or not any idea or claim has any merit. And that does truth a great disservice.

It seems awfully closed-minded to me, to discard value in this way. It would cut you off from the brilliance of ideas that really are something special.

But if it makes you happy, who cares about the truth? Let's all have a big hug instead. :)

Anonymous said...

Thanks Bob for your post about Nassim. I found this guy on the internet a few weeks ago and was in first impressed. Still am a bit with his personality and way of explaining things, but the high new age level of all his stories is clear. No new Einstein i guess. But his theories fitt well into the whole 2012 happening. Nassim brings the message of no doomsday but alien arrival. That at least is a better future than the movie showes us ;-).

Bob said...

Ah, good old 2012. :)

mw said...

Hi Bob,

Thanks for taking the time to elucidate so many things that are wrong with Nassim Haramein's presentations.

I was pointed to his take on the universe and everything but didn't watch all 4 hrs of it, only what was available on You Tube as Part 1 and 2. I also saw his video on the Egyptian pyramids there.

I can't hold my own when it comes to physics, astronomy and archeology, but I do know something about thought structures and relatively essential maths. On that basis I found a number of flaws which in turn prompted me to search for "Haramein fraud" on the internet and sure enough, I found your blog.

Some examples. At one stage he tells the audience that '10^11' (ten to the power of 11) is a '10' with 11 zeros. Actually, it's a '1' with 11 zeros.

Regarding the pyramid (the Great Pyramid, I assume), he tells us that they would have to have put down one stone every two minutes to complete the job given it took them 20 years altogether and assuming they worked 7 days a week, 10 hours per day. Then he says they would also have to look after their fields and therefore had only 3 months/year available for building, so now this means they needed to place a stone every 2 seconds. Well, 3 months out of 12 is a quarter, ie a ratio of 1/4; 2 seconds out 120 seconds (= 2 minutes) represents a ratio of 1/60. Everything else being the same, that comparison doesn't compute.

Lest I'm accused of nitpicking, if someone uses several points to arrive at a conclusion then it is perfectly justifiable to examine those points, no matter how trivial they may seem. How much credibility is in the conclusion if those points are flawed to begin with?

Let's consider Haramein's thought structures through one example (there are several but I don't want to make this too long).

When people argue about some thing and use the word 'right' as a postfix to their statements, generally speaking there are two versions. Either the statement comes in the form of, 'I assume you have done such and such - right? and so ...'; or it is in the form of, 'This is such and such - right? and therefore there is a ...'.

The first represents a question for which an answer is suggested (and for a good reason) and the speaker continues along those lines. Nothing wrong with that.

The second however uses the expression 'right?' as a command to the audience to accept something for which no real proof has been given, and then, after presuming that command has been followed, proceed with giving their conclusion for which there is no basis.

This approach can be observed quite easily among a group of people who have no real grasp of the necessary facts, but it insidious because it forces the listener to either accept what is offered (and hence appear to understand) or make a critical remark at the risk of appearing stupid. Since this scenario mostly occurs in conversational settings most choose the former, out of sheer convenience if nothing else.

Yet in the case of Haramein these are formal occasions, supposedly used for presenting a serious issue. You don't use such colloquialisms because they belong to different, more informal settings and bestow an inappropriate ambience upon the occasion. Since he does, he is using a semantic framework of a rather primitive nature to represent a subject matter requiring a more sophisticated one. Once you spot such a mismatch you'll inevitably find problems with perception - it only remains to pick them out one by one.

Bob said...

Hi mw

Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, Haramein does use a lot of careless language. Most of what he says is simply vague - nice-sounding words or impressive-sounding words but no real content. When he does try to give some content, he is all too often either transparently wrong, or he is simply making an unsubstantiated claim. Your observation of his use of 'right?' is a good example.

His approach is to dazzle and encourage blind faith, and to make people unaware that they are not questioning what he says. It's a psychological trick, and - as you say - it's done by making people feel stupid if they question and making them feel part of something brilliant if they don't question.

He also repeatedly claims that he has done research that backs up what he's saying, but doesn't shows any such research. And the "research" he does publish is written in a way that is incomprehensible to anyone without scientific training. To anyone WITH scientific training, it is clearly garbage, but he can easily deal with this by dismissing all scientists as closed-minded.

It's not a pretty sight, once you start looking into the level of manipulation and abuse of trust that is involved.

Jamie said...

Physics as we know it today is only possible in a closed system. A closed system is a collection of atoms that does not interact with anything outside of the system. For physics to make complete sense here on earth there would have to be an impenetrable shield that keeps meteors, CME, uv radiation, and many other things that definitely interact with our earth out. That being said there is a fundamental flaw in physics. I have known this since my very first physics class and I'm amazed that those of you claiming to be well versed in physics are not willing to talk about that.

Bob said...

Hi Jamie

I'm not really sure what your point is... it looks like you're trying to argue that physics is impossible unless conditions are perfect?

It's fairly straightforward to see that that is not true. Physics experiments in laboratories on Earth work. They give results, often in excellent accordance with theory (to as many as 12 significant figures in the case of some gravitational or QED experiments). It simply doesn't make sense to say that physics is impossible - it's like me telling you that your house is impossible because it's built on soil which isn't perfectly stable.

There are always a number of things going on at the same time, and they must either be taken into account in the theory or, if that's not possible, taken into account by means of a rigorous analysis of the degree of uncertainty it could introduce into the results. Different experimental design can reduce these complexities or allow them to be compensated for. Physics is a very practical subject. It IS the subject of the possible.

If you've 'known' that idea since your first physics class, it's probably time you let yourself unknow it. Otherwise it's going to get in the way big time.

Zach Settles said...

Id just like to point out that there were physicists that proved, with math, that something supernatural was causing the Higgs-Boson particle to go back into time and damage and delay the LHC. I'm just sayin, you can prove alot of crazy things with math, its a rational way to explain alot of things.

Bob said...

Yes, mathematics is a rational way to explain a lot of things. (I've shown that Haramein doesn't understand any mathematics - see my Phi Spiral post for an example. I know that many people don't care about facts and would rather just believe that he does. But he doesn't.)

Physicists have not proved any such thing about the LHC. A couple of physicists did suggest it as an idea: See
It wasn't even published, it was just an idea. And because it was a slightly crazy idea, and because the internet takes any slightly crazy idea and multiplies it a million times, we now have people believing it was proved mathematically. Nobody who understands the physics thinks this. Nobody.

It's a very human thing to choose the ideas that you like the sound of rather than actually bother to find out what is true. People end up trapped in a tightly-held fantasy world dictated by their own preferences. If that's how you want to live, then that's up to you.

But the only way to learn anything about reality is to investigate and question the ideas you like as well as the ones you don't.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob,

You have an interesting view on the fact of Mr. Haramein is a 'fraud' as you mention. Actually, only time will tell the truth in this one - imho.

I have seen Mr. Haramein and met him when he was visiting in the Netherlands. It was a very interesting lecture - and he covered a lot of information in one day.

So, I am not a scientist - nor a mathemathician (can't even spell properly), but one thing is not really clear to me.

Is your point that his Math is bad and that his formula's are not correct? Or is your point that the idea that at least part of the mass of vacuum that is spinning is responsible for the forces created??
So is it the idea? Or is it the execution?

In fact, the whole point that Nassim is making is that matter as such might not exist. All what we experience as matter is vacuum spinning with the speed of light.

We stop this vacuum from spinning it 'disappears'. One theory talks about another 'dimension' - Nassim's theory states you are still looking at the same vaccuum. It just stopped spinning so you cannot observe it anymore.

This is where the 'New Age' part comes into play. Because what makes the vaccuum spin in the first place???

Like I mentioned, time will tell as research advances. But the theories are interesting and - imho - there are foundations enough in his theories to warrant further research.

I will be following your blog with some good interest.


Richard from Belgium

Bob said...

Hi Richard.

My point is that Haramein is clueless when it comes to physics, and that by claiming to be a physicist he displays a lack of personal integrity.

Nobody becomes a physicist by simply having some ideas about matter and the vacuum. To be a physicist you need to investigate your ideas, test them, be open to anyone who points out where they blatantly disagree with reality, modify them until you have something that can be rigorously shown to reflect reality. You need to provide evidence and clear reasoning, not just crowd-pleasing stories. Haramein fails in all these ways.

And by repeatedly claiming to be a physicist, he shows that he is prepared to lie in order to appear respectable, in order to convince people, in order to gain a following. That is the most obvious side - this is clearly not a man who should be trusted.

I haven't a clue whether a spinning vacuum causes forces, and neither has Haramein. When he or others in his team have ideas, the job is to ignore criticisms, ignore any reasons for it not being true, ignore evidence and only look for things that seem to agree.

Rauscher altered Einstein's Field Equations for absolutely no reason at all, other than to make them agree with Haramein's idea. Does this sound like truth-seeking to you, or truth-inventing?

I think we use the term 'theory' all too easily. A theory isn't just someone's idea that they happen to like and know will go down well with audiences. A theory exists to be tested against reality.

As you can see in my Schwarszschild Proton post, it doesn't take much to test Haramein's theory and find it disagreeing with reality. That should be enough to send it back to the drawing board.

In fact I showed it to disagree in at least ten very fundamental ways - in every way, in fact - and this shows the whole enterprise to be deeply flawed.

I know lots of people want to hang on to his ideas. And people keep saying time will tell. WE DON'T NEED TO WAIT FOR TIME TO TELL. All we need to do is show that it's false.

If someone has a theory that the sky is always green, and I point to the sky and say "no it's not, look", then you wouldn't say "time will tell" unless you were mad, would you?

Andrea said...

Hmmm, well, I'm not a physcist, but I am a chemist and my daughter is a research scientist; will that do? I think Nassim is a wonderful breath of fresh air. Like the rest of humanity, he's not perfect, he doesn't fit any accepted "scientist" mould, he doesn't have any of the prerequisites to even be doing physics, and his hypotheses need testing. But I still find his theories exciting and marvel at how beautifully it all fits. What I don't understand is your detemination to "prove" him a fraud. That would mean the University of Belgium is a fraud for recognizing his contribution to physics, and that doesn't seem likely. So what gives?

The thing is, I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, in the whole. You're working from the accepted paradigm. I applaud you for standing up and saying "wait a minute!" although I think "Fraud" is perhaps overly harsh, but it's your blog.

I'd only like to point out the old adage of the elephant in the room - different viewpoints yield different perceptions. To prove the elephant, we can't throw out the math, but imho, we shouldn't shoot down the guy who is floating above the elephant, either.

To demonstrate, let me provide an example of where your sky is green theory fails. I fell in love with Chemistry when I heard the math sing. My father could hear it, but my daughter thinks we're both crazy. Who is right? You would say my daughter, but I would say you're simply both deaf if you aren't able to hear it. In the case of the green sky, the green sky observer may have a genetic defect/evolutionary suggestion which alters the rods, cones or macula. To him, the sky is green, to you it is blue. That may mean there's no point of understanding, but I would hope the curious scientific mind would open, just a bit, to consider new viewpoints.

Bob said...

Hi Andrea.

Yes, of course he is a wonderful breath of fresh air! Who wants to be told that you need to do lots of work to understand cosmology or particle physics. It's so much more pleasant and exciting to be told that it's all a big black hole fractal, and that means you're intimately connected to everything in the universe through the vacuum, and that the world's energy crisis will soon be solved by these geniuses. It sounds great.

The only paradigm I'm working from is the attempt to reflect the reality we can observe. Which means checking an idea doesn't disagree with itself and doesn't disagree with what's observed.

Someone who claims to be doing physics would presumably subscribe to that. If, as you say, he shouldn't even be doing physics, then why doesn't it bother you that he claims to be a world-leading research physicist?

I've presented lots of facts in this blog. There are some new ones here if you're interested. All very straightforward. And I've explained Nassim's Belgian University thing here, which was grossly misleading. I wonder sometimes if people just go "la la la I'm not listening" as they scroll through the facts, and then decide that it must be my motivations and my 'paradigm'.

I don't think you're crazy for hearing the math sing at all. That sounds perfect. And of course there's nothing wrong with someone perceiving blue in a different way. But there's still an objective sky, and it's still not green.

If the viewpoints you prefer are ones that are confused and disagree with reality, then that's your choice. But the physical reality of the universe is still there, and it's still nothing like Haramein's picture of it.

I don't think you can seriously look at my blog and say that I haven't been curious and haven't considered his viewpoints. I've considered them a lot. My considered view is that it's garbage in a frilly frock.

My personal belief, since you don't understand, is that nobody benefits from clinging to falsehoods because they feel good, or putting trust in people who consistently mislead. These are really not good for anyone, spiritually or otherwise.

Anonymous said...

You know someone said the same things about Tesla. Oh ya it was Edison! Heck, even today we are still unsure of his "Science" yet we all use his science every time we turn on a light switch or the coffee pot. Considering that the "Scientific Method" was envisioned by a sleep deprived french guy (Decartes) staring into a fire, I am unsurprised at the negative response Nassim recieves from Scientists. My real question is: a) Is there actually a "Nasty Infinity"?
b) Is the normalization process he describes actually used? (AKA planqs distance)
c)If science is science why do they keep changin thier solid viewpoints every few years as the "discover" complications in the current science paradigm???

mw said...

I would like to comment on Andrea's post, especially her reference to colour-blind people.

Let's say, as Andrea does, that a 'blue' sky is seen as 'green' by someone else. However, and this is the point, would such a person call it in fact still 'green'?

The word 'blue' does not relate to the electro-chemical processes between the retina and the visual cortex, rather it is a linguistic interpretation of the result. That perceived colour, when pointed to by most people, is called 'blue' because that's what English speakers have agreed on, starting at infancy when we point to something and everyone around us said, "blue!". So we learned that when having a certain visual sensation the thing to do is calling it 'blue'.

In the colour-blind person the processes as such are still in place, so much so that when that person is pointing to something of a certain colour everyone would still say, "blue!". So, colour-blind or not, to him that visual sensation would be tagged 'blue', regardless of what it actually means in terms of those underlying physical processes.

That's why, in tests that seek to identify colour-blindness in a person, it is useless to simply ask them to call the colour. Rather, they are given images consisting of many dots of varying colours which, if an abnormal process has taken place, a particular number made up of those dots would stand out; if the processes are normal, the number thus formed would be a different one (called the Ishihara color test). This way the quality of the underlying processes can be identified. For example, most people would see a '9', a few would see a '7', and perhaps fewer still would see a '6' (there are variations on colour-blindness - check "Color blindness" on Wikipedia).

From the cognitive point of view that issue - using mere language to describe what is essentially a subjective phenomenon - has already been touched upon in the Molyneux question in the 17th century. Briefly, could a hitherto blind man whose sight was now restored recognise a cube and a sphere by sight alone?

All this has very much to do with Haramein and the perception of him. Words have meaning because they are a symbolisation of what has gone into forming this or that expression. Unless the pertinent processes and/or events can be objectively retraced the expression may well insinuate something which is unsupportable. The expression per se is only the end result of those processes and needs to be explained along those lines. If it isn't the expression is false.

So, Andrea, your example was actually a good one; except it proved the opposite of what you were trying to say!

Bob said...

Thanks mw - yes, that makes sense.

Just to reply to 'anonymous' above...

The 'scientific method' that you seem to dislike is nothing more than finding things out, looking for patterns, and testing them to try and be sure they're real. Does that sound like a bad idea?

Tesla, like anyone, made some claims that were scientific, and some claims that were not.

(a) 'Nasty Infinity' is not a real term used in science. But it's true that some infinities are big problems in physics, and others are not. If your theory tells you that a measurable quantity should be infinite, then you have a problem. That should be obvious. Quantum electrodynamiscs (QED) had this problem in the early stages. The theory is supposed to reflect real measurements which are not infinite - so it's clearly the theory that's wrong.

(b) The 'renormalisation' process is used, yes, but not as Nassim describes it. Renormalisation is a very logical concept, and it transformed QED into a theory that predicted infinite things everywhere into a theory that predicted exactly what we see. Search for THE MOST ACCURATELY VERIFIED PREDICTION IN THE HISTORY OF PHYSICS and you'll find that it's renormalised QED.

Whether you like it or not, it would be difficult to argue that it has nothing to do with reality.

That's renormalisation used properly. Renormalisation used wrongly involves calculating something using a physical cutoff - eg the Planck length - and asserting that it means something. Funnily enough, quantum field theorists don't do that. The only people who do that are those who claim that there is a physical vacuum energy density. For example Nassim Haramein! He regularly uses these things in his papers, and argues in favour of using vacuum energy as a resource.

I think that's a little ironic.

(c) There are no solid viewpoints in science. Scientists try to get the best theory that they can. When it's uncertain, they do experiments, calculations, and argue over it until it becomes clear.

Over time, experiments and observations get more an more extreme, and we go into new territory. We now have the large hadron collider, and we're observing things billions of light years away. New territory stretches current theories, and occasionally suggests we need to modify them. Science is a big learning process - and nobody can learn anything if they have solid viewpoints.

Gina Bina said...

Imagination contemplating form?
I love it.
Every thing happens for an imaginable/unimaginable reason.
Thus the season or a reason.
Intelligent design
breath taking!

Bob Morrison said...

Hi bob, listen I can't question or debate on much of what you've said due to ignorance however I know that the standing wave resonance shape on the top of saturn was predicted by nassim using his calculations before proven with footage by others, he was laughed at for the very same reasons you do, then proven right by the same community who were laughing earlier. Some of your points if not all may be valid but you are pretending that you are willing to accept you may be wrong, but in reality you only think other people could be wrong but believe they are correct and 'thats ok'.
Well good day to you sir.
you, like the rest of us, still have much to learn. no level of control or complexity of system will be finite in your life. life, and learning, is ongoing. Once upon a time there was no 'zero' it was invented independantly from 1-9 at a later point in history, and science claimed the earth flat, so again, science & math is NOT concrete, no matter how much you may wish otherwise, the work is never done, nothing is 'solid', the only thing I take for granted is that I am alive right now typing this, anything else is subjectable. even that one thing is too however one must have at least 'something' in order to function!

btw, stop saying "i'm sorry you think/feel that.." to those that disagree with you its assumptive, patronizing & arrogant. You are presenting some ideas, not 'enlightening' the peasants...mmmk? ;)

best of luck with whatever it is you do next,


Bob said...

Hi Bob.

If you have any evidence that Nassim predicted something I'd be interested. (I mean an actual prediction, as distinct from an anecdote of one time when he said the words "resonance" and "planet" in the same sentence.) I've been asking for evidence from people for quite a long time, and all I've had so far is hearsay.

I also get lots and lots of messages from people who say "I don't know anything about science but..." and proceed to tell me all about their understanding of science, and who insist that they just know he's right, and that I don't have the right to criticise him.

The thing is, Bob, I genuinely am sorry when people read what I've written and then tell me that they think I'm 'boxed in' and not receptive to new ways of thinking, and that I'm arrogant and don't think I've anything to learn. It's a real shame they - and you - feel that way. It shows that I'm not communicating myself as well as I'd like. Take it as patronising if you like. I could read your "best of luck" message as patronising if I was inclined to. In truth, if I did decide you meant it as patronising, it would probably say more about my state of mind than it would about yours.

Of course science and maths isn't concrete. It bends absolutely to nature – or it should. If science thought it knew the answers, it would stop. If I thought I knew all the answers, I would stop too. That's not actually my temperament at all.

But there are concrete facts out there in nature. Gravity pulls massive objects towards the Earth - it would be a bit silly to say that was subjective.

Some facts, like that one, are obvious to people who haven't studied physics. Other facts become obvious to people who have. Not because they are brainwashed, but because these are people who have devoted themselves to investigating from as many angles as they can think of. When someone who hasn't looked very deeply into these things comes along and spouts their own ideas which conflict with nature, it's as obvious as if they were saying that gravity pulls things upwards. It wouldn't be open-minded for me to sit there and say "oh, maybe he's got a point" while he's talking total garbage. (See the latest post if you don't know what I mean)

Anyway, all I can do is say what I think. It's probably true that the only way to convince anyone of this is for them to study the physics. And those who are convinced that studying physics is closed-minded aren't likely to do that.

Meanwhile, as you say, I'm just presenting ideas. So feel free to treat all ideas equally if you like. Here's my advice. Choose whatever idea you prefer, choose the speaker you like the most, go for what 'resonates' (because surely your feelings are the best guide for distinguishing between different theories about black holes or quantum fields), never listen to people who disagree with things that you like, and whatever you do, don't check whether or not a theory agrees with what people have observed in nature over the last few hundred years. Because that would be closed-minded. That sound ok?

Do show me that evidence though, I'm curious about that.

What's PLURI?

grodzix said...


I watched a lecture by Nassim and it got me thinking. I find quite interesting what he was said but, I don't feel like I understood everything. For example I don't exactly get the idea of fractal division of vacuum, how such division is supposed to look/behave like. However, I think that what he says about need for explanation of origin of spin is spot on.

Still, he didn't provide any solid arguments (in my opinion) for his theories and lots of what he said sounded more like a deep wish than deducted truth. He spent much more time talking about how he got some ideas than actually why we should believe him.

The stories about aliens and antigravity, no matter how compelling, just don't seem to be based on any facts, just a lot of fancy story telling. If he wants his physical theories to be taken seriously, he shouldn't be talking about those stories at the same time when he tries to explain his theories. Especially in a way that make it sounds as if it was a fact.

I had a look through his papers, but I find it difficult to actually make much out of them. Therefore, please explain to me, why are you saying that that his methods are flawed? Show me some specific examples so I know what are you talking about.

I might be no physicist, but I'm perfectly aware that just because we believe in something, it doesn't make it true.

I really liked the whole alien story, but I'm not going to believe in it until I get convinced by some real proofs.

Bob said...

Hi Grodzix.

Please see here for some fairly straightforward examples, and here for a look at one of his papers in detail.

I'm examining his ideas and claims about physics, so obviously I have to refer to some physics to try to explain what's wrong, but I've tried my best to make it understandable. And there are so many examples - so if you find yourself reading something that doesn't make sense to you, you can always just skip to the next one.

Requiring other people's ideas to meet some standards of credibility has to be a good thing. As is the effort of keeping these requirements as free as possible from attachments and prejudices. It's good to see someone doing that. :)

If anything strikes you as unconvincing, just ask.

The Resonance Project Foundation said...

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

Bob said...

Hi, The Resonance Project Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dan said...

I just read Nassim's manifesto and I have to say, even though I'm a skeptic of Nassim's work, he thoroughly owned you.

Bob said...

Indeed, I'm sure many people will think so. It's sad that someone who talks such a lot of nonsense can have such an effect on people. It would be foolish of me to expect otherwise. Facts can always be trumped by rhetoric, and I admit to being no match for someone like him in a propaganda battle.

If you or anyone think he's actually presented anything factual that defends his theories or lays to rest any of my criticisms, then do let me know what it is.

dan said...

I'm not convinced that your actually interested in proving any of Nassim's work wrong or ad addendum or even coming up with your own solutions on anomalies in physics.
You present no credentials, education experience or affiliations. You just hide behind this blog, anonymously. Therefore, your analysis and criticism are with out an merit and foundation and mean exactly nothing.
The only conclusion is that your an attention seeker looking for your 15 minutes of fame by targeting, (admittedly an easy target), a physicist with a bulls eye on his back and attacking his character more than his math. Your words ooze unprofessionalism and hypocrisy.
I commend you for achieving your goal of getting Nassim's attention and a response but I also salute you for drawing more attention to a theory that well in fact could be wrong or correct, but can also inspire other ideas that can lead to a better understanding of our universe.

Bob said...

I really wish people would talk about his mathematics or his physics. I've said rather a lot about them.

Instead, what I get is people demanding to know my affiliations and my qualifications (as if it makes sense for a supporter of Haramein to suggest that these things are more important than what I'm saying), analysing my character based on their own fantasies. And why tell me what oozes in your mind when you're reading something you disagree with - why not just tell me what I've said that's wrong?

If we want a better understanding of our universe, I don't believe it'll be helped by insisting that people should be left to proclaim their own versions of factual science and be immune to criticism. I don't really think that's a good way forward.

dan said...

I'm quite sure Nassim's response to your suggestions are adequate explanations of all your questions. It's certainly your right to not agree with any of them, but at the same time, nobody is forcing you to accept anything as factual science. You say you have said a lot about his math, but that isn't the case. All you have done is compared your short-sighted cynical reasoning to anothers well-researched, thought provoking life's work.

I just don't see the point of all this. Without any kind of substantial body of work or paper, a well thought out and researched rebuttal, or even just an objective argument without childish attacks, your just saying that you don't like what someone is putting out there because, well, you don't like it.

Again, the only conclusion is that this is all a well crafted scheme to grab attention to fill some kind of empty space inside.(To pun on this and black holes would be far to easy)I understand your trying to save people from the heresy of Nassim Haramein, but again, it's anyone's right to disagree or to agree and support someones ideas.

To get a better understanding of the universe, one must push the boundaries of knowledge and perspective. You say that you don't believe that the pursuit of knowledge should be insisted of their own versions of factual science and be immune to criticism, yet you take the standard model as factual science and when someone advances a new way of thinking, you pan it as ridiculous. That is hypocritical.

Clearly you have achieved your goal by getting a response by someone you may be jealous of and secretly enamored with, and good for you.

Bob said...

Isn't it fascinating how easily things become 'clear' and 'quite sure' and 'the only conclusion' to some people - things that only exist in their imagination. I've no objection at all to Nassim surrounding himself with people like that. It seems only right and proper. He's all yours, my friend. :)

Anonymous said...

it's funny to see people demanding things(affiliations and qualifications, math, facts) from Bob and accusing him of only wanting to grab some attention... when all this thing are more obvious in Nassim's case.

but i guess that's how things work and if Nassim won't discover anything relevant, at his retirement he'll at least have some sort of a sect

Zealander said...

All I needed to hear is Mr. Haramein stating that penis is a vector passing through an event horizon of a vagina, which just happens to be a black hole.

Wow! How many times I've been inside the black hole and didn't even know it. That actually explains why my penis curves when it approaches the event horizon of a vagina and time seems to slow down. Also my penis appearing bigger and longer when near vagina is obviously because of Vaginal Gravitational Lensing - "the VGL factor" (peer-review and copyright pending).

Bob said...

This is where the expression "don't go there" comes to mind, but... too late...

It's true, he did say that. He's a cosmic fruitcake.

Zealander said...

Sorry, Bob, I couldn't resist.

Thank you for exposing this wacko.

Theo said...

Good job Bob!

Matt said...

Bob you have some good points and bad points.I think we need a new paradigm.At this point in space and time,we are not trying to find the true answers to the fundamental question,but instead coming up with solutions to equations.Which doesnt mean anything.Throughout history the same questions have been asked,but never are are we here.To understand the true physics of everything we need to understand consciousness.Which to this day no one can answer.At the moment we think that the universe created life,but really its the other way round.Life creates the universe.

Matt said...

Remember space and time is only relative to an observer.Without an observer everything is in a state of possability.This is all proven in the double slit experiment.

Bob said...

Yes, understanding consciousness and establishing how it truly relates to the material world, and to what extent, is a crucial problem.

But let's be clear on one thing. It won't be done by people who pretend to be something they're not in order to persuade people that they're onto something revoutionary. It won't be done by people who present theories and ignore everything that's wrong with them and concentrate on publicity and making money from them. It will be done by people who seek the truth and tell the truth.

The double-slit experiment was revolutionary nearly a century ago, when physicists felt the ground was being pulled from under their feet. It's still utterly extraordinary in many ways, but one thing it very definitely does not say is that there is no objective truth. The truth is not something to be fabricated by Haramein or anyone else trying to win over the public and make a buck.

The truth is out there, just as it ever was, for genuine truth-seekers to discover and explore.

All I want to say here is that if you want to ask the big questions, be careful who you ask. Don't look to charismatic performers like Haramein who devote themselves to collecting paying disciples and mislead them in the process. Ask them of people who devote their lives to the pursuit of truth, and who will be truthful to you.

Matt said...

I agree with you,but I have some problems with the current theories.How can we say we know whats truly happening in the physical world,when we can only see 5% of ordinary matter in the universe.Also when we observe atoms,99.9999% of it is empty space.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

You would probably say it does.I think it wouldnt.If you think about it a sound is only made when waves of air are interpreted in your head as a sound.

What do you think about a biocentric universe?If you havent look up the work by Robert Lanza.

It would be nice to hear your comments Bob.

Matt said...

I think Haramein has some good points.He can explain alot of the unknowns in current science.If you look at the Poles of Saturn,theres a hexagonal cloud pattern.Current physics cant explain that.Haramein physics could explain this.What do you think about that Bob

Bob said...

Good questions, Matt.

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with only being able to see a small percentage of what's out there. There's no real reason why everything should be visible - that would seem prejudiced somehow.

'Visible' just means that it interacts with electromagnetic radiation. Some things do, and some don't. Neutrons don't, except for gamma rays. Neutrinos don't at all. And these are familiar particles. It makes sense that there could be plenty more things out there that don't interact electromagnetic radiation, but could influence us in other ways, such as through gravity.

Lanza's ideas are nice. There are always different ways of interpreting what we see, and if they don't contradict what nature shows us then they're fine as a philosophy. His ideas are very interesting as a way of seeing things. His is certainly not the only valid take on reality, and I don't believe in just choosing one and seeing all the others as wrong.

Haramein, however, does contradict what nature shows. All over the place. And he is clueless on even the most basic scientific facts and ideas (see here for some examples).

So it seems unfeasible to me that Haramein's 'physics' could explain anything about the clouds on Saturn.

All I've ever seen Haramein do is point to hexagons on the clouds, and point to hexagons in his model, and say "there, that shows I'm doing it right!" That would be like saying bees had explained it.

Science, however, has offered explanations - here, and here, and here, and many many other papers. (The third one is particularly interesting.) Science is just honest in saying that there is plenty more to investigate about these clouds. It doesn't mean it's outside the scope of current physics - not at all. Just that we don't yet have a full, definitive answer.

Do let me know if you've any evidence of his theories ever actually explaining anything. I've yet to see any.

Matt said...

Intresting point Bob.But isnt that what Haramein is explaining.He is explaining the structure of nature itself.When a bee make its honey comb,its a shape that nature makes.Then if you look on a larger scale,the hexagonal cloud structure,which also is nature.So when Haramein is explaining the geometry of feed back system,that is also nature.

At this moment in time physicists use Numerical Algorithms for the
Maxwell Equations.But theres a problem.When James Clerk Maxwell stared looking into electric and magnetic fields relate to their sources, charge density and current density, and how they develop with time. Thus, these equations are of basic importance for the totality of physical and electrotechnical phenoma, concerning the fields of classical electrodynamics.

But his original work was looking at higher dimensional physics,which is just like what Haramein is talking about.But when Maxwell died, Oliver Heaviside took over his work,but didnt like Scalar component because it was too mystical,and it was murdered from the theory.

So today when we look at Maxwells equations.They are really the simplified version of his work.So really there not Maxwells equations.There Heavisides equations.

Would like to hear your comments Bob.Thankyou

Bob said...

Haramein isn't explaining the structure of nature, he's just talking vaguely about it and stringing fancy words together to impress people, and dishonestly claiming that he's explaining it.

And he's not talking about higher-dimensional physics at all, he just throws in the term higher dimensions every so often and says some mystical sounding things.

Maxwell and Heaviside and all the other people involved in the classical theory of electromagnetism were scientists. Some dealt with the mathematical and abstract, some with the theoretical and conceptual, some with the experimental and observational. They argued and collaborated and fought and praised each other, and used each other's work, until a brilliant coherent theory emerged. They were all human, none of them perfect, but all were brilliant seekers of truth.

Not one of them would ignore all the discrepancies from the observation of nature, as Haramein does. Not one of them would dismiss the work of their fellow scientists, invent things themselves, and pretend that all criticism is some kind of conspiracy, as Haramein does. Not one of them would market their work exclusively for non-scientific members of the public who are willing to pay for pretty stories without questioning whether or not they are true, as Haramein does. Not one of them would encourage people's prejudices against scientific education and rational thought, as Haramein does.

Haramein is a fraud. He has explained nothing, proven nothing, predicted nothing, and no scientist (aside from those on his payroll) will listen to anything that he has said, because it's extremely clear to anyone who's explored any physics that he is clueless. He wins followers by his charisma, and relies on their gullibility and their prejudices against anything 'mainstream', and he makes a living by misleading people and pretending to be something he knows he is not. It's a fraud and a lie. Can I be any more clear?

Is there anything I'm saying that you disagree with? Please read what I've written in these posts regarding his fake science, particularly the link I gave you in the last comment.

What he's doing is wrong, Matt. It's wrong at every level. It would be good if it were illegal to make a living by mis-selling oneself like this. Unfortunately it's not, so we have to put up with people like him, and to hope that his potential followers will have the sense to question him rather than just be manipulated by his stories and his demeanour.

Matt said...

I agree with you Bob.But what if maxwells original higher dimensional physics was right?

Would we be able to understand what haramein is really on about.

What do you think about Dr. Hans Jennys work on "Cymatics"?

Bob said...

The electrodynamics that emerged from Maxwell, Heaviside, etc. was known to be virtually perfect for every measurable system apart from quantum ones.

Richard Feynman and others used it to develop quantum electrodynamics (QED) in the 1960s, which proved to be the most accurately verified theory in the history of science, and by far the most universal theory ever devised (at that time). It works so astonishingly well, there can be no question of it being wrong and some other theory from the 19th Century being right.

I'm not sure why you're asking me about "what haramein is really on about" - Haramein doesn't know what he's on about.

We all know from experience that it's very easy to see when someone is clueless about something that we happen to understand. Ask any mathematician and they will tell you that Haramein doesn't understand the first thing about dimensions. Or anything else much in physics or mathematics. He's a fraud.

Cymatics? Yes, that's a genuine subject of study. It's not something I've studied specifically. It would be very interesting to.

Matt said...

When physicists describe the universe in their equations.They use pi as a mathematical constant.

How can they use this in their equations when pi is a irrational nunber which CANNOT be expressed EXACTLY as a fraction?

matt said...


Bob said...

Physics doesn't have to be written in fractions.

The number pi is known as precisely as the number two. The matter of whether or not it can be written in a certain way doesn't put any limitations on the application of equations.

If you did want a fraction, 3¹⁶₁₁₃ is very nice. That would give you far more accuracy than most physicists would ever use in their lifetime. But simply using π itself is much easier!

Nassim said...

Without pi, we wouldn't have mind-blowing equations like this one:

\frac{1}{\pi}\ = \frac{\sqrt{8}}{9801}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\fr ac{(4n)!\cdot(1103+26390n)}{(n!)^4\cdot396^{4n}}

Which would be Ramanujan's Method for Pi.
.. and Comte de Buffon needle problem (1777):"Suppose a number of parallel lines, distance one unit apart, are ruled on a horizontal plane, ans suppose a homogeneous uniform rod of lenght 1/2 is dropped at random onto the plane. The probability that the rod will fall across one of the lines in the given plane is 1/pi"

Bob said...


Pi is also the ratio of the natural logarithm to the square root of minus one:

π = ln(-1)/√(-1)

They don't come more elegant than that.

Luke said...

Hi Bob.I dont understand why you think Nassim is a fraud.You say he doent know what he is talking about.And you say all of his maths is not right.But from what I gather he does.His equations did predict that we do live inside a black hole.Which is right because now we know that there is a supermassive black hole in the center of galaxies.

When you say he Nassim doesnt know what hes going on about when he talks about nasty infinities.But he raises a good point.Then you say if you was to ask any mathematician,they would say he doesnt have a clue.Sorry but your wrong.I would advise you to look at the work done by Marcus du Sautoy.Who is Professor for Public Understanding of Science and Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford.


Interesting discussion. reminds me of Ken Wilber's "nobody is smart enough to be wrong all the time". There must be a value to Harameins approach, though I see that his ways of coming to conclusions are unconventional, perhaps post-conventional. I am thankful for this critique, it makes me more aware of the mystery we live in... and of our believing people who claim to understand it.

The more modern, rationally oriented people in the discussion are going for the hard facts without much room for deviation, the more post-modern, pluralistic oriented people go for 'just pick what's true for you'. Both are harmful if they assume they are the only true, valid viewpoint.

Bob said...

Hi Ambroziac

Thanks for your thoughts. I think you're right – there may well be a value to Haramein's approach to something. I don't want to stand against 'pick what's true for you' and 'hard facts', that's not a polarisation I'd like to set up at all. There's no place for an authoritarian cult of objectivity in this world. So I think we're on the same page.

What I would like to say, though, is that there are some things where 'just pick what's true for you' can be really out of order. For example, anywhere where prejudice is involved. It's easy to think of examples through history of where 'what's true for someone' happened to be something that we'd now see as pretty darned ugly. Slavery, sexism, racism, ideological blindness, religious fanaticism... they're all 'what's true for someone'. They're all intuitive, they're all gut feeling.

Prejudice means pre-judgement. Coming to a judgement before gaining any kind of familiarity with the person being judged. Coming to a conclusion and holding to it come what may, without taking a real interest in what they're like, without taking taking the time to get to know them intimately.

Now of course I'd be silly to accuse anyone of proton-ism! But something of the same thing really does apply to protons. I mean, who of Nassim's followers has ever met a proton? Talked to one, as it were, and asked it what it's doing? Observed them in their natural states? Got to know them well, and how they behave in all sorts of circumstances?

There ARE people who do this. NONE of them will attest to Haramein's theory... in fact I can virtually guarantee that if you find anyone who has studied protons in the flesh, or who has studied in intimate detail the results of scientists who have studied protons in the flesh, they well ALL tell you that Haramein's work is garbage.

Now are you free to ignore all that and choose your own version of what protons are like? Of course. But it would be deeply prejudiced. And if you were to argue with those who know protons intimately, it would be arrogant, not to mention laughable.

This is what Haramein is doing. He's never worked with protons, and he has no understanding of the work of people who have. And this, also, is what everyone who follows him is doing.

You might say what's the harm. I don't know. It's harmless fantasy. But I value the truth more than this, and I also find it disturbing to see people like Haramein discouraging others from studying true science.

Physics is a particular way of doing things, that can be simplistically summed up as "bothering to find out". Haramein most definitely doesn't do it. He makes it up. Call it post-conventional if you like, but it's nothing to do with physics, because he just isn't doing the detailed, intimate work that physicists do. He's guessing, naively, and just ignoring all the contradictions and the misunderstandings. The fact that he calls it physics isn't a matter of pluralistic freedom. It's a straight lie.

I see him doing this in all manner of ways, not just with protons. Every time he presents something of science, it's an undigested superficial crowd-pleasing mess. It clearly has entertainment value! But it very definitely isn't what he claims.

Now if what you want to take from him is an inspiration about us all being connected, and to look at the pretty pictures of the universe with lots of like-minded people, and stay clear of the sciencey stuff, then yes, that is a good thing, and I'm all in favour of it.

But if you want to know more than someone else's fabrication about how the universe is, what protons and black holes and stars are like; and if you want to be treated with respect and honesty, then the point of my blog is to suggest that you look elsewhere, and to explain why.

I hope that sheds some light on what I'm getting at by writing this.

Mitch said...

Bob, what are your qualifications in the field of science? I apologize for asking if you have already posted this information, but I did not want to sift through all the posts.

One thing to note about Nassim is that he has not been discredited, or dismissed from the world of science. This is because his work HAS been considered as credible scholarly evidence that the fundamentals of physics are sketchy at its foundation.

To think the UNIVERSE was created from a "bang" is arrogant and laughable, to put it in your words. The world of physics is on the cusp of realizing the truths.

We will all find out what Nassim is talking about when the highly credible, and government funded scientists come out and say..."well, he was right." I

Bob said...

Appeals to authority are not my thing. But you can wait for your "credible and government-funded scientists" if you like, that's fine by me. Let me know when they're here.

muzuzuzus said...

How I came to hear about him---I was in this mammoth debate at (the longest thread ever which was eventually locked). I had started it and titled it The Danger of Islam! I was attacked by 99% of the members for being racist, and the ONLY one who knew what I was talking about--who was an ex-moderator--supported me in this hostile arena (and by the way I do NOT believe the official story about 9/11), and at some point he mentioned about Nassim, and because of his respect I thought I would respect him by really diving into nassim's VERY long video. I even transcripted much of it!

Now--the thing about 'science'. IF you are not even scientifically-minded, or even technically-minded which I am not--then ANYONE can talk any old shit and I wouldn't know would I. But what I am into is a deep interest in mythology, and my misgivings about this dude was that aspect.
it is when he leaves all the 'science shpeel' (blindin with science) and starts going on about ancinet myth etc is when I was very suspicious. Not ONCE did he mention entheogens being involved with ancient myth! For someone who claims to 'knowwww the secretssss woooooo' this was very odd. So, his idea is that the 'secret' was some kind of advanced techno in the hands of the 'chosen people'.....? And what is funny is his body language when he is talkin about this. With the science section he is quite animated, but when he's talking this it is all wide open eyes, and his speech gets slower, and ---its all phony LOL

Anonymous said...

When it comes to my science I like it dead nuts accurate. There is no room for fallacious arguments, non-peer reviewed work being touted as revolutionary, or manufactured evidence that cannot stand on its own. Real scientific work must be clinical, exacting, unbiased, and accurate. I think Nassim Haramein is a nice guy, would make a great spiritual leader to many, but what he's doing is plainly not science and the fact that no other noteworthy scientists are applauding his "ground breaking work" speaks volumes. This is not science, in fact it's not much better than JZ Knight.

Charles said...


I am flabbergasted that you have the time, energy and patience to put up with the same contentless ramblings that all appear to me to be based on the idea that uninformed opinion has value.

My hat is doffed. I am in awe. I shall try to be a better person and go forth into the darkness of ignorance and enlighten as you do on the off chance that someone, somewhere may listen and begin to do the hard work of becoming more rational.

In all seriousness, thanks. I really don't understand how you manage to keep plugging away.


Bob said...

Thanks Cy. I kinda like these guys. I can't believe they keep on coming - still thousands of visitors every week after 18 months. Our clueless fake scientist certainly has a way of sparking the curiosity of a lot of people.

Well... I say curiosity...

When I'm curious, I argue with people; so when someone argues with me, I see it as curiosity, even if it's probably not. And I like curiosity. I'm a bit naïve like that.

Anonymous said...

I watched some fairly long videos by Nassim and met one of his students who also lectured. I found he was a decent teacher of some ideas and liked that he had chunked his information in a manner that I found easier to follow than a lot of drier presentations that do not seem to worry if you are tracking the info well. I liked what he had to say about the theory of strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity and how this needed to be updated to eventually form the unified field theory equation (which is to show the interconvertibility of these fundamental forces). I found several other nuggets like this that I found valuable and showed he had done some serious and creative thinking about the subject. I did find the whole presentation informative and it did draw from a lot of sources and tied them together in an interesting way. Oddly enough, he seems to stop by my town and people have talked with him at a restaurant he likes to go to. When he is not talking Quantum Physics, he seems to be a fairly regular dude. I would be curious, though, of any critiques of his thoughts that take the form of quoting him exactly and indexing him in a way that can be double checked and comparing him to other theorists (and doing the same thing). I do not like when the critiques get too generalized. I also feel that "fraud" is a strong word and would need some economic evidence over and above not liking his physics or merely showing that he is getting some funding from/for his lectures. A fraud is someone who knows that they are lying and does not believe what they are saying, and lies to get money from people and knows how to work the system to do so. I do not consider myself to be a groupie of his or a follower of his, but just someone who liked what he had to share and liked how much he documented the material (though I did not double check the references, I just do not have the time unless more is at stake, some of the research he quoted did match a subject that I had previously studied and did tab up well (the New Testament Higher Critical Studies).

Bob said...

Hi, thanks for your comment.

I know that lots of people like what he has to say. They are all people who, like yourself, choose not to delve into the details of his theories or check the references. What can I say? The choice is yours - stay on the surface, or look underneath.

If you don't have the time or the technical understanding to check things out deeply yourself, I'd recommending finding someone you trust who does.

His work consists of pieces of info he's picked up from popular science books and pre-college textbooks, most of which he's misunderstood and explained entirely incorrectly, together with things he's simply made up.

As for whether he's a fraud - he knows perfectly well that he's fabricating research and misleading people into seeing him as a scientist. That is scientific fraud. If you look at his publicity, he clearly uses this, misleadingly, to attract paying audiences and sell products.

He's perfectly aware that nobody with any understanding of physics takes him as anything other than a joke. He's been trying to get taken seriously for a decade.

You don't have to take my word for it. If you want to call his bluff, here's what to do. Pick one of the many scientists (real ones) that he quotes in support of his ideas. Any one will do - there are plenty. Write to the scientist and ask them what they think about Haramein using their work in that way.

Also write to Haramein, or his team, and ask him whether he believes that the scientist supports his work, and if not, why not.

If possible, do this for a few of the people Haramein cites. (Some understandably will prefer not to respond to queries about someone who is very clearly a charlatan.) Watch Haramein's excuses - and irritation - build up... and then decide whether or not he's aware that he's fabricating research.

Try it. It's an easy way to find out a few things, without needing to spend too much time researching or understanding the science yourself.

I guess you could argue that all the scientists whose work he cites are clueless and that you know better - but is that honestly feasible? And if they're all clueless, why is he citing their work?

I'll leave you to figure it out (or to not think any more about it, depending on whether you want to choose depth or the surface).

Good luck anyway.

Bob said...

"I liked what he had to say about the theory of strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity" - it's wrong, of course. Whether you like it or not.

" I do not like when the critiques get too generalised" - no, me neither, which is why I've presented some very specific analyses of his work and many specific examples of him misleading in his presentations. I agree, generalisations are not constructive. Whereas if someone is shown to be consistently and clearly incorrect, time after time, over hundreds of specific examples, I think that counts for something.

Anonymous said...

So Bob, you're saying blind faith won't & doesn't cut it. Does your God roll dice....?

Bob said...


Anonymous said...

Hi Bob,

Im really glad to have found this page. I too found Mr.Haramein to be interesting and was really excited about all the information he was presenting. But when I started jabbering about it with my father, he made the same kind of argument you made, that if he was so right, how come non of the physiscist that I truly admire, like Dr.Stephen Hawkins, have invited him into their realm?
So, after my initial excitement turned to anger at being so convinced, I realised my dad, like you , have made a damn good point in asking those questions.
To be a good and recognized scientist, you have to be willing to be criticised and have your work tested. And you have to be willing to admit when your wrong. Stephen Hawkins and another scientist made a 100 dollar bet about whether or not anything could escape a black hole. Hawkins believed without a doubt nothing could. But a peer, I cant remember who, theorised that matter could eventually escape. And this guy was was right, and he won the 100 dollars, and hawkins conceded proudly and honorably that he was wrong. And it didnt mean he failed at nothing, it merely meant he recognized and admitted he had been wrong. And everyone went home happy. If Haramein is so right, how come he isnt at Cambridge or Oxford working along side Dr. Hawkins to see if his own work adds up.
So, Im going to take the side of caution, even to my disapointment, and ask why nobody is presenting this guy to the world and saying, "Hes right!"
Plus, it is kinda weird that he avoids the mainstream academia, and relies on youtube to promote his "theories".
Maybe he thought he was on to something, but when someone finally said, hey , thats not right, he just flat out rebelled and decided to just make a magic show out of it to make money.
If any layperson wanted to write and get a response from Dr.Stephen Hawkings, they could, and hed respond without making you join a club in which you pay money to be apart of.
I sad that because when i was 9 or ten, cant remember, I did just that. I wrote to him because blackholes fascinated me, and the still do. And about 6 months later, he did. And I couldnt even even understand half of what I got back. But that didnt matter, because of my interest, I am a part of the club.
Cant wait to converse some more with you Bob, you helped my dad make a good point, and maybe save me a buck or two!

Anonymous said...

schwarzschild proton.. what have you come up with BoB?

Bob said...

"Maybe he thought he was on to something, but when someone finally said, hey , thats not right, he just flat out rebelled and decided to just make a magic show out of it to make money." - my feeling is that it's something like that, yes.

These things are perpetuated by certain types of people, people who are liable to believe an idea because it feels good in some way, and don't care to ask deep or troublesome questions of it. It's a very human response to a story, but not a very reliable one.

My feeling is that lots of people liked Haramein's stories, and they responded to him by telling him how brilliant he was, and to some extent he believed them. These kind of reflections can be very powerful.

I do have good reason to believe that he's at least partially aware that he doesn't know what he's talking about. But I suspect he's just as vulnerable as his fans are when presented with a version of reality that makes him feel good.

He has fans telling him every day that he's right, that he's a genius, that he's doing serious research, that he's the new Einstein. That might be nice for him! But it's also not true, and if he doesn't have what it takes to rise above it, he may be trapped in a lie for the rest of his life, with no choice but to try to keep his fans in his fake version of reality with him.

He wouldn't be the first person in history that that's happened to. And there are many thousands like him all over the web.

Anonymous said...

bob your ranting is so boring i just couldn't read any more. Anyway Stephen Hawking was proved to be (on some levels, i think the most important ones) wrong on the black hole theory by Leonard Susskind with his HOLOGRAPHIC theory. Sound familair?

Bob said...

Wow - you mean a real scientist used the same word as Haramein? Sheet, that means Haramein isn't a fake after all!

I mean, there's no way anyone could use a big word like that unless they were a real scientist...

Sorry for the sarcasm, but the 'used the same word' argument gets me every time. It's an eleven on the gullibility index :)

devontree said...

3 dimensional math is new to u it's ok your not alone but try to expanded your mind a bit your killing my excitement but Your not doing your home work it's not easy when your not in to it maybe you should keep On with flat world math but its a long boring dead end didnt get the wake up call bye look at it again just not from the stand point of anger but from the stand point of joy

devontree said...

Well I was only able to Read the first part and now your posts Your motivation lacks integrity the truth doesn't need you to defend it but the attention could be helpful oh I just saw a popular tv show maybe science channel I was a little upset that the were cashing in on harameins theory's and not giving him credit when he's taking all this flake no credit and attacked pick a side not that you made money on his ideas It was recent I was shocked but ain't that the way So I guess someone was interested some Einstein wanted abee chick when U see it you'll know what I mean Scary

Anonymous said...

Please Devontree,
I don't know if you are five or six, but I'm begging you, please, try to write properly, or the rest of the human beings here won't understand. There are a few rules to english we all should follow. Yes, maybe those "status quo" rules of grammar and generative syntax are designed to kill your imaginative thinking and stuff, but please, there's no other way we can understand each other if we are to use english language for debate.

Bob, I'm thinking maybe it's a good idea no to post (or erase) comments that show this inability to write plain english? It really pisses me off. Oh dear.

muzuzuzus said...

You will see Nassim featured in this video I have just come across THRIVE

Bob said...

I don't think I will, thankyouverymuch

Anonymous said...

Once infinity is introduced into the equation the answer can only be one and one can only be infinity.Can we still call that math or science?
The problem with proving infinity is it takes for ever to get the results.

Bob said...

Infinities can be used in a variety of perfectly valid ways in science. Another very subtle subject. Mathematicians know how to operate with them pretty swiftly.

If a quantity in a theory that is supposed to represent a real, measurable thing becomes infinite, then the theory is obviously wrong.

If infinities appear elsewhere in a theory, and they don't translate to anything that is or should be observable in nature, that needn't upset anyone.

Using infinities is no stranger than using negative numbers – it's a very useful mathematical tool. We're all used to negative numbers. But when your results tell you that a real quantity, like the area of your field, is minus ten acres - that's when you have a problem.

Anonymous said...

Infinity can be used in a variety of ways...There's the problem. It can be used in an INFINITE number of ways or only ONE way. It can't be used in a structured amount of ways. That's just counter intuative. Anyway. Where does he claim to be an acredited mathematician or physicist?

Bob said...

He doesn't claim to be acredited anything. He just claims to have insights into physics that go beyond all other physicists, when it's clear he hasn't a clue what he's talking about. And lots of people believe him, and he encourages that.

Infinities are perfectly well-defined mathematical objects if treated properly. If you know what generated the infinity that you're dealing with, there'll often be a precise and unambiguous finite physical result from it.

If you don't know what you're doing and you get an infinity, you won't know what to do. You can't just make it up. You have to retrace your steps very carefully, and you have to know what you're doing.

Anonymous said...

After reading a suggestion on the internet that anyone should read about Nassim Haramein I started searching the internet. I watched his videos read all of his 'scientific' papers (since he calls them the scientific ones) and I even checked his references and the autobiographs of the people he refers to. Here are my suspicions about his reliability:

1) he uses both SI and CGS units (However, apparently it is more common in the US? but still unacceptable in most parts of science)
2) he uses no uncertainty bars in his graphs or any uncertainty in any calculation. So no conclusion can be justified.
3) he uses wikipedia as a source and no one in the scientific community, including students, is allowed to do this.
4) he uses mainly himself and Elizabeth Rauscher as source, Elizabeth is a parapsychologist which makes it dubious. According to his acknowledgements a biologist helped him write his papers. Both the biologist and Elizabeth Rauscher are not independent.
5) he gives superfluous basic formulae like F=ma which don't contribute a lot.
6) he says when v = 2,99*10^l0 cm/s than it should equal C where it obviously doesn't. They may look alike but he doesn't deduce it is actually C.
7) the layout of his papers: anyone could use LaTeX to write a paper but his papers don't look professional at all, especially considering his use of spacing/variables/typeface in his papers compared to peer reviewed papers.
8) Citations of his work is mostly from himself.
9) he gives a lot of constants which are practically 'self-evident' but he also doesn't give the uncertainty of the measured constants.
10) His calculation via his method to get to the magnetic moment isn't equal to which it should be, according to him. He claims this is just because of approximations but he can't claim this is even likely resembling the actual value since he doesn't provide the uncertainty of his final value.
11) his papers don't seem to be peer reviewed. I only could find his paper on his own website, religious websites or in a database which doesn't guarantee all the papers are peer reviewed.
12) he claims the existence of perpetuum mobilae which is absurd.
13) he claims that there is infinite energy which is also absurd.
14) he gives claims for the divine and other epistemological views opposing the scientific epistemological view.
15) he tends to speak in platitudes in his videos. He only keeps questioning the same questions but doesn't give any answer or even a reasonable answer.
16) he uses straw men, in his video "earth not orbiting the sun" he says that it is being taught that the sun isn't moving, which is false. And his way of using straw men can barely seen as anecdotes which doesn't seem to be 'professional' at all.
17) in the same video he talks about:‘spirals to your mothers womb' and 'connecting spirals’ which is New Age nonsense which doesn't contribute to any form of science.
18) some of his animations don't seem to be relevant where their only use might be to amaze the crowd.
19) he says newton's 3rd law is physics 1st law
20) he claims super luminal speeds (not just apparent super luminal speeds)for masses is a real thing.
21) he claims for the existence of Nibiru
22) he asks for 10 dollars a month so he doesn't need to use research grants from governments or institutes for the development of getting free energy. Which gives a scam element to his repertoire.

My conclusion: I don't and can't really trust Haramein.

Bob said...

Thanks - that's a handy list.

I wonder how many it would take to get those who think Haramein is the new Einstein to think a little more deeply and a little more carefully (and a little less clichéd).

If anyone wants to post a link to the above comment, how about

Happy reflecting! (Or happy denying, for those who aren't so good at reflecting but want to join in the fun)

Anonymous said...

It actually took me 8 hours of research to come up with this list. I started with the idea that he's a genuine scientist. And I see how people could think he's one since when he asks people if they're still following him everybody says "no". Even a lot of people who say he's a manifestation of intelligence also say they don't grasp him. But I do not want to sound this like an appeal to the majority fallacy.

I'm flattered by your link.

I think way more arguments would be needed for obvious "opium for the people" reasons.

Bob said...

You're right, there's no rational value to appealing to the majority.

In fact I'd go so far as to say that starting out on the basis that he could be right and could be genuine and paying attention to him is the only way to honestly convince yourself that he's untrustworthy.

There's no excuse for anyone dismissing him on the basis of prejudice. He should be given a fair chance, a fair hearing. And when it becomes overwhelmingly clear that he's a fake, that's when he should be dismissed. Not before.

That's why I appreciate the effort you've made.

Anonymous said...

Keep up the rants Bob, I consider then a valuable public service ;)

Bob said...

Thanks! I love back-handed compliments :)

Anonymous said...

Kudos for your pseudonym :) I can't believe Haramein really found it disturbing :D

Bob said...

I thought he found this blog disturbing because people were googling his name and reading explanations of why his scientific arguments are bogus and realising they could see through his pretence, when he'd rather have uncritical support and sell lots of stuff. But I'm sure various alternative interpretations are also available for those who aren't interested in content.

Anonymous said...

23) in the video "crossing the event horizon: interview: Dr. Elizabeth Raucher"; she tells we can acquire knowledge (besides science) through meditation/yoga/dreams.
She seems to be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect ;)

Anonymous said...

24) in the video "PART 1) Nassim Haramein at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library. 2003. (4 HRS) " (watch from 3:30:00) at 3:31:00 he says that if the sun wouldn't move, and the earth would return to the same position in spacetime (after a year)"it would be the same year every year (and that would be boring)". He thinks that your position on the spacetime continuum determines A)your position B)the time/what year it is, where B) is obviously false because it indicates how quickly or slowly time passes because of the spacetime curvature.


Bob said...

Whoa - he said we'd return to the same point in time if the Sun didn't move? That cat is one confused bunny! And nobody questioned him? :-)

As an aside, if he wants to talk about spirals through spacetime, he can, but he needs to draw the Sun as a cylinder, not a sphere. (No joke)

Also - small point of logic - if the Earth returned to the same point in spacetime that it was in a year 'earlier', it wouldn't repeat the same year again - it'd just crash into the Earth from last year. Wouldn't turn out well...

Anonymous said...

Nobody COULD question him because nobody is capable of following him because it's incredible nonsense.

Alright, I've watched a little more of that video and I've lost all hope for this guy. HE IS DEFINITELY NOT A SCIENTIST. I thought there might be a slim chance he could be in some way a scientist however very unlikely, but he can't be.

25) you can leave an imprint on the spacetime 'structure' (coordinates).

26)In the video "PART 1) Nassim Haramein at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library. 2003. (4 HRS) "
at 3:34:00 give or take: he says
"a spiraling earth is important for psychology* so some one could go back in time in their mind-time* following the true mechanical path* of the planet through space and go back to an event that was dramatic for them. And what you do...(he didn't explain it here he falls quiet)* and you know what? It makes a big difference* because if you try to do it with the wrong model (static sun)after going a year back it's too confusing because all the space time overlap* each other and it gets messy*."
he continues
"you have to look at a dramatic point from a 180 degrees different view*, for instance if you got abused you have to look from the raper's view* at that time and then you'll feel empathy* because they feel the same emotions etcetera this person was having at that moment*"
27) Nobody could imagine the size of the earth. Nobody could imagine the size of the solar system. Nobody could imagine the path the earth described. Nobody could imagine the path you discribed on the spacetime continuum. Nobody could imagine the path you described while spiraling through space. Therefore how could it ever matter whether the earth is spiraling or not; you couldn't imagine it anyway so it wouldn't help anyone psychologically.

I can't believe I was ever so stupid to doubt whether I was on the right side of the discussion. Ofcourse scepticism is normally the right way to go.

*:= "WHAT!"

My conclusion: Haramein is definitely not a scientist, he absolutely doesn't know where he is talking about. Either he is scamming people or he is one of the biggest examples I have ever seen for the Dunning-Kruger effect (gosh I love that effect).


Anonymous said...

Oh, Haramein called it "Ground Hog Year" I believe he's seen a certain movie way too much ;)


Anonymous said...

On a side note: the dutch physicist Erik Verlinde presented a theory of where gravity originates from.
I saw someone on this website commenting about the holographic universe.

I went to two lectures of him (one for physics students and professors and one for laymen) and it was about a holographic universe. Seems the way to go these days. He presumes that information could be discribed on spheres. When something is moved inside the sphere the information on the sphere also moves (like a hologram). This ofcourse sounds like Harameins spiritual nonsense but it isn't of importance what exactly is described on the spheres. So there is not really an epistemological issue. What Erik Verlinde deduced from this assumption is that with some basic formulas coming from fields of informatics and physics he could derive the law of gravity and thus implying gravity is not a fundamental force. I can't remember which formulas he used but he used about 5 or 6 formulas in the laymen lecture.
Erik Verlinde is contrary to Haramein respected, peer reviewed, not a spiritual nut etcetera etcetera.
A fun fact is that someone in India tried to claim Erik Verlindes theory was his but actually he wrote some formulas over from a blackboard where Verlinde was photographed. :D


I might have summarised it incorrectly so here's the link:
It actually doesn't look like any paper Haramein wrote. :P

Tucker Poindexter said...

another example of avoiding the issue: this guy literally wrote a page apparently about to debunk haramein which ends up leading to nothing about his work. he simply states that he thinks haramein knows didly about the scientific method... this seems to be a natural response from someone who is simply irked and/or confused by haramein's topics and made a mistake by trying to translate that into debunking

tucker poindexter said...

to anonymous/dionysus
what spiritual nonsense?

Bob said...

Hello Tucker

Are you saying this page doesn't say anything about Haramein's work? Are you saying this page doesn't either?

Maybe you didn't see those ones...

Anonymous said...

To Tucker Poindexter,

I'm a third year theoretical physics student. I'm quite able to follow fierce debates whether QM should be interpreted as something ontological or epistemological.

I wanted to post a 1460 word comment but I couldn't because it had more than 4000 signs.

In short:

1A) existence of Nibiru, where he says the mass he calculated Nibiru has should gigantically influence any circumsolar orbit. But apparently we’re still alive (at least I would like to think so). But according to Haramein he really saw Nibiru. Someone asked him “why didn’t get the orbits all messed up when Nibiru was here”; Haramein couldn’t answer it. There is a short answer: Nibiru doesn’t exist and Haramein’s claim was false.
1B) How was Haramein able to determine the mass of Nibiru despite the fact it didn’t alter any circumsolar orbit.

2)he also says that vaginas are actually black holes. I know a lot of physics students which obviously have been doing some ‘experiments’ and no one lost a penis or actually got killed by the energy which would have been the result of the penis-ripping. I would like to call this the Penis-Ripping Paradox or PRP for short. Haramein’s statement is nonsense and demonstrably false.


Anonymous said...

Just another thing,

Haramein also claims to possess a carved rock on which an alien and ufo's are depicted. Besides the point of aliens visiting us, he was asked whether he dated the rock, ofcourse he didn't ;)


Anonymous said...

About the Schwarzschild Proton,

a proton has a mass of 1,6*10^-27kg. But the lower limit for the mass for a black hole, the planck mass, is 2*10^-8kg. Black holes shouldn't be able to have the mass of a proton.

Due to hawking-radiation black holes will eventually evaporate. A black hole with a mass equal to the planck mass will evaporate in 10^-40 seconds.

An experiment established a lower limit to the proton lifetime of 2.1*10^29 years.

When a black hole is more massive it should take longer before the black hole evaporates. Since these black holes would be far greater than a proton black hole it should also be able to gain more "vacuum energy" not only would these black holes not evaporate they should also gain mass quite drastically.

Or am I missing the point?


Bob said...

All that is basically true. The proton lifetime is known to be many thousands of times greater than the figure you gave.

Hawking radiation has never been observed, but event horizons would violate so many fundamental laws of physics if they didn't radiate. It would require very careful reasoning to avoid Hawking radiation in a theory without being dishonest or incompetent.

At 885 million tonnes, the mass Haramein proposes, a black hole would radiate violently, but if present on Earth it would consume matter and grow faster than it radiated. Though not as fast as you might expect... it would drop unimpeded through the floor and orbit the core of the Earth as if it were travelling through a vacuum, making little gamma-irradiated superheated tunnels. Possibly for hundreds of thousands of years, until gradually the planet collapses in and is radiated, swirled, atomised and consumed.

Black holes are pretty intense. And they aren't about to be controlled - they do precisely as they please.

Anonymous said...

I think that Haramein is just a mouth piece in that group of "renegades" calling themselfs a ressonance project. He likes attention so he is willing to stand there and take whatever is thrown at or rotten tomatoes. So, I think that the person who should really be "brought to justice" is Elisabeth. It's all her work anyway, Nassim just interprets it for the masses and it is easily obvious he has little math knowledge behind the theories he is talking about.

Dakota DiSpirito said...

A loud and lengthy protest , Bob. Thou dost protest too much. Your continuance with this fixation says a good deal more about you, I think, than it does about Nassim. This usually has some kind of fear factor in operation. He is on the cutting edge of bringing the world of spirit and the world of science together. Both of them are going to have to make some adjustments. Instead of expending all of this energy in denying him...why not find something positive and cutting edge that we can rally behind, as well.

Bob said...

I'm not protesting, Dakota. I've written some explanations of my understanding, in response to people who requested it, and I've responded to people who have commented.

If it's lengthy, it's because lots of people have commented.

I'm trying to be helpful. Sorry if you can't see it. I've tried my best.

Neither am I denying anything. At least, I'm trying very hard not to. As I see it, you have to ignore what is in front of you in order to deny it. As you can see, I've examined it in as much detail as I can. I could have said more, of course, but it only ends up lengthier.

If you think I'm missing something important about his science claims, or got anything wrong, then I promise to you, as I've promised to everyone else, a thorough, decent, honest and open discussion of whatever you believe I have missed.

And I promise to you that I will enter into that discussion on the basis of the actual content of the subject matter itself, without resorting to making presumptions about who you are, what your motivations are, what your emotions are. It would be arrogant of me to presume I knew anything like that about you (as it would if you were to presume you knew anything like that about me).

And I promise to you that I will not rest my discussion on empty claims that I am unable to substantiate with reasoning or evidence, because what I value more than anything is honesty.

If you think these are fair terms for an honourable and respectful conversation, from your side as well as mine, then I would welcome any discussion with you, Dakota, as I would with anyone who wishes to dispute anything I've said or help me understand something I have missed.

So please, go ahead, the floor is yours. What do you see as his contribution to science, and how does it relate to what we can observe in the world we live in?

Bob said...

I wonder whether Dakota will add anything, or whether it was a statement of blind faith.

If someone makes a proclamation of their faith, I can respect that. What we individually find meaningful is a deeply personal matter.

When someone uses their faith to tell another person that they should see things their way, for no other reason than because they say so, that is bigotry.

Especially if that would mean denying what they already have overwhelming reasoning and evidence for. And even more especially if the person of faith takes zero notice of what the other says, and makes zero effort to understand their position.


Not everyone who attempts to defend Haramein is a bigot, with no interest at all in listening or providing any reasoning or evidence for their claims, but the majority seem to be.

I don't suppose many of them will be interested in bringing more mindfulness to that aspect of their faith, but the invitation is there. If you like a spot of soul-searching, it's always a fruitful place to dig.

brandonken said...

I really enjoy watching Nassim giving his presentations because I feel like it is going to take someone with radically new ideas to get us past our current limited understanding of the universe. Nassim definitely fits the bill. BUT, unfortunately it doesn't seem that many of his theories hold water. One of the things that stood out to me instantly was his explanation of how bounded infinities work. A triangle inside a circle(in 2d) with a polarized triangle on top of the first. This creates the star of david. He then continues adding polarized triangles on top of existing triangles ad infinitum. He says that this demonstrates how an infinite amount of information can fit into a finite space. But there is very little information here. It can be summed up in a few lines of code. Draw circle. Inscribe triangle. Add polarized triangles to existing triangles. Using Murray Gell-Mann's AIC or Algorithmic Information Complexity, Nassim's theory is shown to contain a very, very small amount of informational complexity. While you can keep drawing triangles forever, you aren't adding information to the finite space. This is just one example. Most others have been discussed here at length, so I won't go into them. I am completely unbiased. I'm just a truth seeker. I will listen to anything anyone has to say. But great claims require great proof. Someone smart said something like that. Can't remember who.

LadyDanielle Zana said...

sure lot of haters out there, he is non-mainstream, so what... deleting his Wikipedia article was stupid... It could have been updated with your arguments with his... now with the page gone, we have to do more clicking and more reading at his and your sites... :<

Bob said...

Hi Lady Daniella.

You do realise that I didn't delete it, don't you. It was deleted before I'd even heard of him.

I agree, it would be good to have a Wikipedia article on him that told it like it is.

Sadly, as I'm sure you can imagine, it would be unmanageable in practice. As you can see from the comments here (and elsewhere), he has way too many followers who believe he's the best thing since Einstein and that no criticism should be allowed. His supporters would be all too keen to fix his entry to suit their fantasies.

Wikipedia relies on the interested public to edit the articles. On the whole, the only people interested in Haramein are his fans, and none of his fans understand the scientific meaninglessness of what he's done. So who's going to ensure the page is correct and accurate? Scientists won't do it – they don't care. It's not science, it's garbage. The page would be policed by Haramein dogmatists.

The administrators of Wikipedia know only too well that such pages cannot work on a publicly edited encyclopaedia.

Besides, except in the fantasy world of his fans (who know all about him anyway), he is of no interest at all. The only other people interested in him are festival organisers and talk show hosts who want to get a bit of extra cash or publicity from his fans by using him as bait. And perhaps the odd social psychology student interested in cults and the way people can fall for dogma dressed in fluffy clothing.

Luckily, anyone interested in a balanced view of Haramein will find plenty of sites with sound information and open, honest discussion. They can contrast that with his closed forums, his institutional brand and his self-hype. If they care to look.

Anonymous said...

Desperate times and people are growing more and more concerned about the future. He dangles the promise of free and clean energy, a modern day Tesla, and it is attractive. Couple this with a popular belief that better methods of making energy exist but are being hidden by governments around the world. Finally, what alternative to fossil or nuclear fuel has modern mainline science provided? He gives hope, even if it is false hope, and sometimes that is comforting. I hope his is right and can break past the barriers set out against him.

Bob said...

Many people don't realise what a destructive force false hope can be.

If people with a genuine desire for making the world a better place are caught up in some entertaining fantasy world, where prejudices against serious research are encouraged and amplified, do you not see how harmful that is?

Science has brought us awareness of the profound effect our lives have on the climate, and it has brought us solution after solution after solution, and continues to do so. Every university with a science faculty carries out research into alternative energy, as well as programs for communicating to the outside world. To think otherwise is madness, if it's not pure prejudice. I don't understand where people get ideas like this.

We're waiting and campaigning for public opinion and political will to act on the continuous and consistent warnings of climate scientists and invest in the alternative energy that has already been developed. The absolute last thing we need is people like Haramein leading people to mistrust science even more and put their faith in fairy stories instead.

If you love the Earth and Nature and want the world to be a better place, find out about it. Learn about it. Study it, look deeply into how it works. Don't follow someone because they say something that appeals to your preconceptions - that's like listening to gossip. It really is no way to treat a loved one. Our world deserves so much better than that. At least take the trouble to find out whether or not they have a clue.

Right now we're continuing to destroy the planet's life support systems because politicians can't bring themselves to support the results of climate science and act on the implications. Too many of them are swayed by gossip and refuse to take the science seriously. And far too many of the public are too, and won't vote for a politician who discusses climate science. It's insane.

This kind of mistrust and prejudice against science can have very serious consequences. I really wish I knew how that could be communicated more effectively, because I find it deeply disturbing.

It is possible to embrace science and spirituality and hope and live a balanced life, don't you think?

muzuzuzus said...

Just to make it clear--is the consensus here that there *is* no corporate-political suppression of 'free energy' alternatives to fossil fuels?

Bob said...

If by free energy you mean wind, wave, solar, then of course there is plenty of "corporate-political suppression".

If you mean vacuum energy as an alternative to fossil fuels, I think you'll find that it is no more suppressed than unicorn-farming.

muzuzuzus said...

I mean both.

Anonymous said...

Bob is pissed, because Haramein and of course his ->'working model'<- is kicking the giants in the nuts, from atop THE was able to do it from his van bahahahah and it all started when he was...what..4? hehe (1111)

such is life tho..right?...right.

Great Blog!


Sylvain said...

I don't know very much in physics, but I know enough to see that Haramein doesn't resort to an unknown force, as the mainstream physics do to explain the phenomenon of the protons which normally should repell each other instead of being stuck in the atom nucleus. Haramein only resorts to the well known gravitational force. So, he succeeds where the mainstream fails. Wilhelm Reich has been called crazy because he called upon a "new energy" that he called "orgone. At least, oppositely to the mainstream science, Reich did that as a result of his own observations. While the mainstream resorts to "strong force", "color force", just done mythic inventions, to make right its own equations. Haramein succeeded to give a rational and coherent explanation where Wilhelm Reich and the mainstream physics failed.

Bob said...

The strong nuclear force is not a mythic invention, it's a force that is as observable as the hand in front of your face.

The only reason you don't see it as clearly as the hand in front of your face is that you don't spend your days looking at, working with and relying on nuclei or subnuclear particles. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, of course, do.

What kind of person chooses to spout their own prejudices about something they have no experience of and have spent no time attempting to understand, and ignores the actual daily experience of the people who work with it? It's immature and pathetic. Grow up.

Anonymous said...

So Bob, please explain then. Will we ever find the "god Particle" (the smallest thing in existence)? It is naive to presume it stops at a boundary that we can no longer penetrate. Likewise on macro trajectory. Mathematics and physics by nature do not bode well with infinities and yet happily use such infinities when it suits the purpose of their research. You simply think on a small and narrow traditionalist level.

Regards, Ash.

Bob said...

Hello Ash. I don't know how to predict the future, and I don't pretend to know either. If you want people who pretend to know things, ask Haramein.

The "god particle" was a joke name for the Higgs boson. Which was predicted by the standard model of particle physics. And WAS found, just last year.

Nobody in physics presumes that anything stops at a boundary we cannot penetrate. Who gave you that idea? (I can guess).

Mathematics does deal very well with infinities. And very carefully and rigorously. Why not ask mathematicians about it, instead of listening to people who pretend to know things?

And why in hell do you pretend to know what I think? Are you nuts? Of course I don't think that.

This is precisely what I mean by saying Haramein is misleading. He's utterly full of shit. Decent people listen to what he says, they believe it, and they end up going up to other people and saying some truly idiotic things.

Anonymous said...

Does spacetime move? If i put one sun in space, it rearanges space acordingly (curves). Does one point of space return to the same point of space when i remove the sun? Does spacetime roll of film or is static like table cloth?

with regards,

Anonymous said...

roll like film ment to say...

Bob said...

One of the main results of the theory of relativity is that there are no points of space. What looks like a point of space to you will not be a point of space to someone else who is moving relative to you. (You may believe you are stationary, and they are moving. They may believe that they are stationary, and that it is you who is moving. Neither of you would be more correct than the other.)

Massive objects curve spacetime, not space.

Spacetime points do exist - but because they only exist at one point in time, you cannot watch them move.

Curving spacetime is very difficult to visualise, unfortunately. We can imagine a curved 1D line, or a curved 2D surface. A curved 3D space is very difficult to imagine. In relativity it is 4D spacetime that is curved. If you see pictures of curved sheets/fabrics, remember that they are very simplistic.

Luckily, the mathematics is very precise, and it can tell us what being in a curved spacetime would be like. If spacetime is curved, here's what happens.

As we go into the future (this means moving in the time direction, even if we are not moving in any space direction), a curvature of spacetime will make our motion through time drift slightly into one of the space directions, so that we start to move through space too.

This is what we experience as gravity. The direction that our time motion drifts into is the direction we call "down", and the motion we experience is called "falling" or "orbiting". Most of the time, we make sure there are objects underneath us to keep pushing us upwards to counteract the effects of the curvature of spacetime.

One way you can imagine the a fabric of spacetime is by imagining every object on the surface of Earth, and what would happen if the ground disappeared but gravity was still there. Everything would start to fall inwards, towards the centre. If you imagine more objects falling in after these ones, so that there is an inward stream of falling, then that would be a good depiction of the spacetime curvature of a planet.

But it's not a complete description. A passing meteor or comet also follows a spacetime path due to the gravity of the Earth, but nothing like the flow that I just described. Neither does the moon, or the satellites that orbit the Earth, or the photons of light that pass by the Earth. There are many ways of imagining something complex - all can be useful - but the important thing is to remember that none of them can be complete.

As with everything in relativity, it all depends on the relative motion. The flow I described is only the flow for objects that were stationary on the surface. There are many other flows for many other kinds of object.

The spacetime points themselves don't roll or flow, and they're not static either. They only exist for an instant. They don't go - or stay - anywhere.

Anonymous said...

a... thanks for the answer.. forgot about time component... was wondering why is there a force between to bodies... (the newton's law).. it's actually time that takes the other three dimensions with it, so the ball actually changes place in 3d space.. (did needlessly divide time and space again.. )
anyway.. it's nice to have a person to go to with my questions occasionally.. thanks again..

with regards...

Bob said...

"time takes the other three dimensions with it" - yes, that's a good way of putting it.

Another nice thing to think about is that 'weight' is merely an illusion caused by having something preventing us from following the flow of the curved spacetime we're in (which is mostly due to the Earth). The ground gives us weight by getting in the way.

The spacetime we're in is also curved by the sun, moon, etc., but the Earth is free to follow the flow due to those, so we don't get any weight due to the sun or moon pulling on us. (We're not at the centre of the Earth, though, so our sun-weight and moon-weight doesn't entirely disappear... the tiny difference is called the tidal force, because it causes tides.)

Anyway, thanks for asking. I like this stuff :)

Anonymous said...

was thinking about how matter falls into black hole. As it travels down the drain, is it right to assume, that chunks of matter get striped to small pieces, and that pieces to atoms, and futherdown atoms rips appart, and so on ... so what is left is only energy? how come it has mass?

with regads

Bob said...

Mass and energy are equivalent.

Both participate identically in gravity (that includes photons of light - they do fall just the same as anything else, and they do attract each other gravitationally, contrary to what most people think.) When energy is confined inside something, its energetic interior is hidden from us and all we experience it as mass. When an object's mass energy is released, such as in a nuclear reaction, then we experience it as energy again.

In fact, any contained energy becomes mass. If you heat a brick, you have increased the energy it contains, so it will have more mass. The change in mass is extremely tiny: a 1kg brick would get heavier by nine billionths of a gram if you heated it to 1000 ºC.

This is why the energy of anything falling into a black hole, whether it's matter or light or neutrinos, becomes mass. Mass is just energy that is temporarily contained.

Given enough time, a black hole will lose mass by Hawking radiation until it evaporates altogether. Almost all of that radiation will be in the form of photons, which have no mass at all.

Anonymous said...

this "a black hole will lose mass by Hawking radiation until it evaporates altogether" kind of bothers me a bit.. if a black hole loses its mass to the point, where it does not have enough to trap light & everything else, shouldn't it revert to some type of star?

with regards

thanks in advance for your answers..

Bob said...

Hi Franc.

The black hole doesn't revert to some kind of star because its event horizon shrinks as it loses mass, and gravity becomes stronger as you get closer to it.

For a small black hole, light has to get very close before it is trapped. If it does get that close, then it will be just as trapped as it would be with a large black hole.

So the black hole never loses mass to the point where it doesn't have enough to trap light. It remains a black hole all the way down, getting tinier and tinier as it loses mass, until it disappears altogether.

Anonymous said...

I am just wondering where the fraud is. As a kid I realized that like fish in water, so are we in space. After listening to Hassim, a lot of things are coming together for me. Keep it simple. Most solutions to complex problems are

Bob said...

If all you want is stories that feel right, and if you'd rather dictate what space should be like than find out, and if you are completely unwilling or unable to question what he feeds you, then I agree, Haramein could be for you.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob,

Thought provoking blog! I've got two questions.

1) Any thoughts on the works of John Hutchinson, John Searl, Henry Moray, and Bob koontz in regards to "free energy"?

2) Any thoughts on negative mass electrons that Dr. Koontz asserts can be used to create energy in his letter to Dr. Michio Kaku?

Thanks for great discussion!


Bob said...

Koontz is a moron. I neither know nor care about the others.

If you have any serious questions with regard to anything in particular that any of these people are telling you, please ask and I'll be happy to discuss it seriously.

If all you're asking is my professional opinion, then it is that they are idiots. They are deeply deluded people if they believe what they say, they're definitely misleading, and they're selling a brand of empty-confused-shite-that-looks-like-science.

Get as far away from it as you can, and the people who promote it.

Anonymous said...


I thought my second question was at least somewhat serious. Granted I didn't provide any technically specific question regarding negative mass electrons, but that doesn't invalidate my question, does it?

When you say "Koontz is a moron", did you have anything specific in mind? I'd hardly go so far as to say someone with his accomplishments a moron.

I can understand you might not agree with his theories, but calling him a moron is, I think, uncalled for and brings you dangerously close to being arrogant. Did I miss something?

I am interested in the blog you've started because, I am searching for objective opinions on a subject matter that I am not all that familiar with; Physics. My interest in physics was awaken, I have to admit, by Haramamein's claims. Having followed Dr. Kaku, Dr. Neil Tyson, and Dr.Feynman; and now having someone like Haramein put forth claims that his theory is able to accurately predict the size and mass of black holes, as well as "predict a very precise proton charge radius", I have to say it was worth investigating, because for me it implied something significant would have to take place if his claims are confirmed and demonstrated by the scientific method.

Now, I understand you've put forth several arguments that may indeed contradict some of his claims. To be frank with you, I am not a physicist, and therefore, not qualified to make any intelligent judgements as to the accuracy of your work. Naturally, that would also mean, I can't do the same in regards to Harmaien's claims either. However, I can gather as much information as possible from various sources , which most of would have to be based on what has been demonstrated by the scientific community as valid, and draw my own conclusions.

From what I've read so far, you seem to have a fairly good grasp of the subject matter, so I am using you as one of those sources (though, I haven't seen any work that you've done to validate your qualifications). This leads me to my next question:

Haramaen's claims that his predictions have been confirmed by The Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI).

1) If this is true, what are the implications of the work he has done?

2) If his claims of the confirmation are not true, where would one find the necessary documents to call him out on such a fraudulent claim? In other words, does PSI have any publications that would otherwise contradict his claims?

Hopefully, my questions are serious enough this time around. As to the of issue the other scientist I mentioned in my previous question, below are some links that might shed some light on some of their work. The relevance of bringing them into this discussion is to establish the fact that there are credible theories that are not mainstream but nevertheless, significant and worth exploring. I don't think Dr. kaku's theories have yet been confirmed, but that fact doesn't take any shine off is brilliance.

1. Dr. T. Henry Moray:

2. Dr. John Searl:
Work done base on his theories:

Looking forward to reading your thoughts.



Bob said...

Hello Curious.

Apologies for my facetiousness. Please understand - I do find these people incredibly tedious.

I'm aware that Koontz is an intelligent and accomplished guy. But the things he says about negative mass electrons are so transparently false and full of confusion and misunderstanding, it's difficult to understand what has gone wrong for him.

It's the kind of thing you see from someone who has just come across the idea of antiparticles for the very first time, and has simply got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Historically it isn't true. Physically it contradicts so, so many things that are observed.

I would understand if he had come out with this thinking in the 1930s, but in the 1990s it requires a huge amount of ignorance about all the major experimental and theoretical successes and failures of the past few decades.

For someone who parades credentials the way he does, I think it's rather pathetic.

And I find it disturbing that he is so keen for people take what he says seriously instead of encouraging them to learn physics from people who understand and use it.

If you're genuinely interested in learning about physics, rather than about people who've grabbed hold of a misunderstanding and gone off the rails with it, then I can only encourage you to stay clear of people like him. For me, personally, I just find it sad to see so many people led, pied-piper-like, off into these worlds of grand claims and magic promises, when genuine physics is so exciting and so open.

As you're not a physicist, I can't explain where Koontz's logic fails to you. There isn't much point trying to convince you that way. If you need to know, you have to either devote years to learning quantum theory - in particular Dirac theory and quantum electrodynamics - or speak to lots of people who have already done that. There are many many thousands. You needn't take my word for it.

As for the others - yes, I've seen their claims, I've seen idiotic things that they've said that make me cringe, and I don't see why I should look at the details. If these people can generate free energy, they will generate free energy and make billions. Good luck to them.

If they can't, then what might they have instead? A following of people whose only contact with modern physics is from popular books and wacky websites? A homepage where they promote themselves for lectures and talks, sell books and videos about their ideas, encourage conspiracy theories to try to explain why nobody will fund them?

Here's a handy guide for promoting stupid physics ideas written by one of the most brilliant theoreticians of the 20th Century.

I don't know if this helps to shed light on the difference between "credible theories that are not mainstream but nevertheless significant and worth exploring", and things that are transparently wrong and really just daft. It is a fine line sometimes, but these guys are way off on the wrong side.

Bob said...

Returning to your questions about Haramein…

1. It isn't true.

2. PSI measured the charge radius in 2010. Haramein has done some numerology (it isn't physics) to find a number that looks similar to the number they found in 2010. If you look at Haramein's paper, he references this 2010 measurement. In 2013, PSI measured again, more accurately, and got a similar result. Haramein claims his work predicted the 2013 result.

It is dishonest, transparent and pathetic. Please don't waste your time on it.

Haramein's number isn't anything to do with the charge radius. It's a thing called the reduced compton wavelength, multiplied by four. He got it by multiplying and dividing random things until the number looked right. None of it has anything to do with charge.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob,

No worries. I can understand the frustration.

The majority, if not all, of Haramein's followers are not physicist. However, since he has masterfully found the "right" channel to communicate a very complex subject matter in a very user friendly and easy to digest manner (however wrong it is), it is very easy for a layperson to cling onto Haramaein's "physics" that he/she felt was right /intuitive and run with it as thought it were the discovery of the century. I'm afraid he has the upper hand in this regard as he has mastered the art of deception.

I've read enough about his "physics" to draw my own conclusion now, but I'm afraid I still have some questions.

I noticed your blog regarding on this subject goes back some 3 years. Your passion for Physics is evident in the way you've defended it against what you know to be absolutely fraudulent and misleading postulations put forth by Harmaein. My question then is:

1. Since you obviously have the needed arsenal to dismantle his claims with ease.Why not come forth from the veil of anonymity and prove him to be the fraud that he is in a manner that would prevent him from being able to use physics to defraud people? Perhaps, a live debate that would then be uploaded to youtube.

2. Has he/his organization offered to debate this with you publicly? If so would you accept?

Thank you for putting forth all the effort.



Anonymous said...

Sorry about the grammer and punctuation errors. I've been up for over 18 hours making my rounds around the globe. In need of some serious Zzz.


Bob said...

I'm not out to compete with Haramein. I don't have an agenda or an institution or anything to sell, I'm not looking for popularity or trying to win anyone's vote.

If the thing that matters is genuine curiosity about the way reality is, and he's full of crap, then I don't see how you could say 'he has the upper hand' - it doesn't make sense to me. A debate doesn't make sense either. Science isn't decided by who can sway the whim of people.

If people want to delude themselves with his stories, they're welcome to. If they have the tiniest bit of curiosity as to whether any of his ideas stand up to any scrutiny, they can very easily explore what's written here and elsewhere on the web.

I've made lots of effort to communicate publicly and politely with him on his website, blog, Facebook page, even using someone else's account to do it, and each time he has blocked me and deleted my comments as soon as I've asked any tricky question that indicates that I know what I'm talking about. He's made it very clear, to my eyes at least, that has no intention at all to discuss his ideas publicly with any physicist, and that he's quite aware that he's a fraud.

It would be great if someone could make an attractive, clear and persuasive video explaining some of the many many many examples of him being clueless and being dishonest. Especially if it was sympathetic to the many people who find themselves drawn to his ideas out of genuine curiosity, but just haven't yet felt any need to question it. I'd very much like to see that.

Could you do that? Do you know anyone who could?

Anonymous said...


I wasn’t in anyway trying to imply that you should be in completion with NH, or that you’re in need of anyone’s vote in order to have the points you’ve made validated. The intent of what I was trying to say was simply, is there a way to shut this guy up about his nonsense once and for all in a face-to-face forum? I think you answered that with:

“I've made lots of effort to communicate publicly and politely with him on his website, blog, Facebook page, even using someone else's account to do it, and each time he has blocked me and deleted my comments as soon as I've asked any tricky question that indicates that I know what I'm talking about. He's made it very clear, to my eyes at least, that has no intention at all to discuss his ideas publicly with any physicist, and that he's quite aware that he's a fraud.”

When I said ‘he has the upper hand’, I was referring to the fact the majority of people (at least the ones that have accepted his theories) are not as easily swayed by the facts that you’ve raised in your arguments simply because, your approach does not have all the glitter and mystical feel that his has, nor should it. I am not implying that you should do the same, just stating the fact that his masterful delivery of what is clearly utter nonsense is effective in getting the attention of, not only laypersons, but experts in the field. From what I can tell, he is at the center of this blog, right?

To be frank, I wish all science subjects were taught in schools with the same charisma and energy that the guy brings to the table. Maybe then, we wouldn’t have so many scientifically challenged people that are desperately in need filing a void to run off to someone that delivers views that seem scientific and “feel right”.

Since I discovered his sermons (I can't bring myself to call them lectures), I have been on a quest to learn all that I can about real physics and how I can use it to learn more about reality. To have found someone that has professionally refuted all of his claims, I have to say it has been very rewarding. I hope you’ll continue to present the facts.

For those that were in the same boat as me when you first saw Haramein’s sermons, I offer the following:


Anonymous said...

"Ask yourself honestly. Are the natures of astrophysical objects, or the mysteries of high energy collider physics, really something you believe you can encompass with your intuitive experience? Do you seriously believe that you're better off relying on an inner sense of resonance in your soul – even more than investigating the world of experiments, observations and the interpretations that follow from them – for deciding whose theory of black holes you should agree with, or what the nature of a proton is?

If the answer is yes, then that's quite some inflated view of yourself you've got there.

If not, then please lay off the "I don't understand any of the physics but I just know in my heart that what Nassim is saying is true"business. I've heard that far too many times already. If you think any of the facts that I'm giving are wrong, tell me why. (And tell me why the facts are wrong, not how you think you can read my motivations from thousands of miles away, please. The facts are there. If they're correct, deal with it. If they're wrong, explain it. They won't go away.)

There's nothing open-minded about hanging on to a theory that's WAY outside anyone's intuitive experience, just because you really like it or you really like the person who told you it or you felt a spiritual response to it. If you want to know about cosmology or particle physics, go and find out about them. If you think you can do better than the scientists out there working on them, go and do it.

If not, just let go, and accept that there are things you don't know.
And I'll happily accept what I don't know.
It's very good for the soul."

In my humble opinion, NH followers can do themselves favor by at least making an honest attempt at listening to the points of views presented by Real scientists before making claims that Haramein has the answers that those scientist haven’t figured out.

To answer your question on making a persuasive video that would bring his flaws to light, I have to say, that is not my field of expertise and I would do more harm than good. However, I did think the video that you posted in one of your blogs that addressed some of the fundamental flaws of his theories would be a good place to start.

Again, great work! Your blog has certainly helped me to gather facts that I made it easier to view it all from an objective vantage point.

Best regards,

Anonymous said...

"Real scientists" was suppose to have had a hyperlink...sorry. Here it is:


Bob said...

Yes indeed.

"I wish all science subjects were taught in schools with the same charisma and energy that the guy brings to the table." - ok, I see your point and I definitely agree with you here.

I'd be a little bit careful with charisma, though. The nature of charisma is that it persuades people not to question or think critically. Some popular scientists and science communicators are rather too good at this - I'd put Kaku in this category. They're good at inspiring people to begin with, so they do play a positive role, but you have to hope people will become dissatisfied with them and move on before long. However brilliant a physicist Kaku may be, there isn't really a massive difference between his type of story-telling and Haramein's, as you've probably noticed.

The video you linked to looks great, though - I haven't seen that one.

Lance said...

I was thinking that Nassim Haramein is a real researcher but after watching him speak in the documentry Thrive that aliens taught ancient people mathmatics , science etc he lost creadibility. Mr. Bob Let me get this right. You are not criticizing or attacking Nassim Haramein for his alternative views or theories on science. You are trying to show others that what Nassim does isnt science at all but its pseudoscience. You are trying to prove that Nassim Haramein is a pseudoscientist. He is clueless about real science . So thats your point. You arent attacking an open minded physist who thinks a bit outside the box and diferently. You are exposing a fake person who is wearing the mask of a physicist and fooling others with his self proclaimed cutting edge theories. His innocent followers are in his trap because they are themselves ignorant about real science and are being decieved by this charlaten.

Bob said...

Thanks, Lance. Yes, that is what I was trying to do.

It is very clear, I think, to anyone who is sincerely interested in questioning and checking and asking deep questions about what they are being told, that he's faking it.

Sadly, I think many people are not interested in those things. They think of themselves as open-minded and radical, yet they are so devoted to the stories they like, the storytellers they like and the tribes they feel part of, that they don't want to look beyond these things. If they identify with it personally, they will turn strongly against anyone who questions what they subscribe to. It is very difficult to communicate with people when they do this.

It's quite human, I think, but also quite sad, especially when the storyteller that they identify with is a fraud.

lance said...

You are right Bob. These people following Nassim Haramain and other New agers like Greg Braden , Deepak Chopra etc who twist and turn science to fit in with their bizzare new age theories lack self reflection. There followers accuse others to be closed minded , narrow thinkers etc. But they themselves are what they oppose or claim to oppose. They remind me of George orwells theory of "Double speak".
These new agers sell their works by using science very often. If you have free time can you make a post debunking new age sciences like matter is an illusion , holographic nature of reality , we create our own reality etc. New agers very often say that matter is an illusion and doesnt exist and quantum physics has proved that. Matter comes through e = mc^2 and when particle and anti particle collide matter hence so only energy and forces exists. How do you counter such b.s arguments perpetuated by the new agers ? Well i give the example of a car. First of all matter aint an illusion but is composed of energy and forces. Just like a car is composed of engine , tyres etc. We can seperate engine , tyres , seats and other parts of a car and the car would disappears. Saying matter is an illusion and doesnt exist is like saying car is an illusion and doesnt exist. What do you think about my argument is it fallicious ? How will you debunk new agers such claims. ?

muzuzuzus said...

There is a game being played on us! OK, on one hand we have scientific determinism which claims that only 'objective' reality which can be measured is real, but is mechanical and insentient, whilst the 'subjective' part of ourselves is inferior and/or illusory.

On the other hand is New Age philosophy, as you describe it above, is the inverse. So THAT is the choice...?! They are famous for doing these kinds of 'choices' so as to maintain their control of body and consciousness, another being vote 'Left' or 'Right' you will still end up with the same crap.

BOTH worldviews, scientific determinisn and New Age philosophy, keep nature at a distance, and this is the covert deliberate plan. The power wielders do NOT want us having any communal interelational experience of nature. This is a BIG reason for their irrational war against psychedelics, because they are aware that psychedelic experience can undermine these containing oppressive worldviews. This is also a reason why indigenous peoples are being persecuted around the world, because for many there is an understanding that the land is sacred. It is NOT an 'object' to be exploited, and it is not illusion.

lance said...

@muzuzuzus who says science is only interested in mechanicaly measuring things ? Can one measure pain , feelings , digestion etc but there are great scientific theories explaing all these phenomon. Taking into consideration your new age beliefs that the ruling elite wants us to turn away from new age. Well thats a separate issue what we are discussing that what new agers do is neither mainstream science or alternative science but plain b.s or pseudoscience. Nevertheless if you have raised that question then i would like bust your bubble and tell you the truth that the new age is excatly what the ruling elite wants us to believe and follow. The magazines of freemasons was called the new age in the 1950's and they talked about how they would bring in the new age spirituality which is the envisioned world religion for the future by the elite. The mother of the New age Helena Blavatsky was also part of the elite so was Alice Bailey. So is maurice strong , Al gore , Tickell and other elite frontmens like Micheal Gorbachev and Robert muller. All the elite corporations like IBM have new age seminars. Even the UN has a new age meditation room. This new age is promoted through t.v shows , movies , internet etc. Two good documentries exposing the New age movement are The Gods of the New age. And The power behind the New world Order. The ruling elite is behind the new age movement.

muzuzuzus said...

In science there is something that David Chalmers has called "The Hard Problem", and this means how and why we FEEL. So this is not talking about measuring behaviors and the effects of consciousness on an MRI scan and so on, but the very EXPERIENCE OF feeling--also called 'subjectivity'. That.
Wilhelm Wundt known as the Father of Psychology claimed humans were soft-machines so you can thank him, and those thinkers influenced by him, for this self-image we are to have of ourselves as being machines.
Not only us, but the animals (Descartes, Father of Philosophy) and nature itself which is believed to be insentient. So my main point is that scientific determinism maintains a psychological separation between uf and nature, and so does New Age philosophy which claims mature/matter is illusory. BOTH world views, the inverse of each other, maintain this schism.

Bob said...

Quantum theory is, among other things, a theory of matter. So anyone saying that quantum theory means matter is an illusion is a bit deluded.

The argument putting scientific determinism agains New Age bollocks is not really that interesting. I don't subscribe to either, and the arguments I've made against Haramein have nothing to do with anything so naïve.

I'm fully committed to strengthening my connection with and understanding of nature, and to appreciating the philosophical complexities of what that means. (There are other posts on here, like this one, where I've touched on that a tiny bit.)

For thousands and thousands of scientists, their entire reason for studying their subject is the desire to connect with and understand nature, at a much deeper level than their preconceptions, prejudices and intuitions could ever realise. For me, and for them, that is precisely what science is for.

lance said...

@mazuzuzs i dont know why are you repeating the same nonsensical argument of scientific determinism vs New age. Regarding your points about the hard problems of consciousness. Well scientist study it under the Qualia. Google Qualia. Scientists arent dull monotonous and mechanistics people who dont have subject experience. You have got the wrong definations or understandings of science and scientists. As bob pointed out scientists are very curious , questioning , willing to learn individuals who are bevildered , fascinated and amazed by nature and the universe. They want to know and comprehend the laws , system and everything else about nature and the universe. In their search for truth they try to seperate facts from fiction and all superstions , false beliefs and pseudoscience comes into the category of fiction. Most religious and spiritual people who get there ludicrous beliefs discarded by scientists and other rationalist start to claim that science is dull , mechanical , deterministic etc. Their followers instead of learning real science parrot these labels , slogans and tags and perpetuated them.

muzuzuzus said...

I read about that 'nonsensical argument' as you wish to put it in a very recommended book titled The Spell of the Sensuous, by David Abram.

What do you mean 'scientists study it under Qualia'? What are you talking about? Study what, feeling, experience...? lol

What again do you mean by this statement "scientists aren't dull monotonous and mechanistic people" What you mean ALL of them.....? WOW, how do you know that?

I get from you t5he typical reactive response when anyone DARE critique science. it becomes like a fundamentalist backlash. *WHY* cannot science and scientists be criticized? Your position--what I am feeling--is you are more supporting scientism than science. And I bet you will not accept that term. Am I right?

This is a big hint of your positition:

"Most religious and spiritual people who get there ludicrous beliefs discarded by scientists and other rationalist..."

Who are *you* to say their beliefs are ludicrous oh follower of the Church of Scientism?

Bob said...

There are scientists who study feeling, experience etc.

Of course scientists can - and should - be criticised. They're human beings. Some of them are less pleasant, less ethical, less open-minded than others. And science without criticism makes no sense at all.

There's a difference between criticism and dismissiveness.

There's no need for tribalism. The world is full of human beings who are genuinely intrigued by the human condition in different ways. Some are scientists, some are not. If they're not dishonest or denialist or manipulative, surely this richness of exploration is a good thing?

lance said...

@muzuzuzus i think you are right science shouldnt be our sole authority in judgeing what is right or what is wrong. Personaly i think science is just a medium. The elite gives us obselete science. The real science is kept with them. Science can be both used and misused. The ruling elite keeps the use for itself. The Elite frontmens like Bertnard Russell openly talked about the creation of a totalitarian system using science. Russell was a great mathmatecian , Philosopher. He unveiled the elites plan for world totalitarianism using science in his books The Scientific outlook and The Impact of science on society. Even Charles Galton Darwin who was a renowed scientist and founder of psychometry and the grandson of Charles Darwin wrote in his book "The Next million years" describing the tyranny of science and how it will be used by the elite to rule over the masses. Also Aldous Huxley who was the brother of Julian Huxley wrote extensively on this subject. Watch does video here Aldous Huxley talks about the scientific dictatorship of the future. In this interview with Mike Wallace here
also watch Alan Watt. He is a truth researcher and talks about how science is used against the general public. Alan talks about nearly everything concerning the NWO.

Bob said...

Whoa. Some of that stuff is pretty offensive, as well as being just childish fantasy paranoid tripe.

If that's the conversation you want to have, would you please have it somewhere else?

lance said...

@Bob aaahh ! now i realize how closed minded you are. You want me to go away because i wrote about the dangers of science and explained that its not what the people at the lower levels believe.
Regarding your childish paranoid fantasies well who is a fantasy Bertnard Russell ? Or Charles Galton Darwin ? Or Aldous Huxley ? Or their books like the Scientific Outlook , The next million years or The Impact of science on society ? ? What is the paranoid childish fantasies ? You didnt explained.

Bob said...

I was referring to Alan Watt.

"You want me to go away because i wrote about the dangers of science" - don't be silly.

The ruling elite isn't keeping the real science for themselves. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but that's just laughable.

Scientists at the cutting edge aren't interested in secretive work, they're interested in breaking new ground and communicating throughout the world.

Fifty years ago, instant global communication wasn't central to how science progressed, but it has been for decades. It isn't possible to do cutting edge science without international cooperation and communication.

Most people in government are scientifically illiterate. The sensible ones have scientific advisors who try to make sure they don't say stupid things in public.

lance said...

@Bob Alan Watt was just elaborating what Russells , Darwins , Huxleys said nevertheless your claims that scientists at cutting want to break new grounds and communicate their ideas to the world is plain BS. Government agencies like CIA , NSA , DD centralize and monitor all science. Only an idiot can say that government is illiterate about science. The government has full knowlegde about science and other fields like economics. 80% of scientific research is dedicated to military research. The government and big corporations like IBM fund huge scientific projects like the push towards transhumanism. Lower level scientist dont know what they are used for. See here EU funding € 1 bn to transhumanism research. Get over it bob scientists are intellectual prostitutes who help people brainwash and fool in things like global warmming.

Bob said...

I've never found that there's any point in continuing trying to converse with someone once they start bludgeoning away with those kinds of convictions.

You're free to feel convinced about whatever the hell you like, and I'm free to delete it if any more appears on my blog. Deal?

lance said...

@BoB Oh you want to censor me. Ok lets stick to traditional known scientific things going on. Do you think global warmming is real? Do you really believe in global warmming ? Climate and temprature of Earth keeps on changing throughout the centuries.

Bob said...

Um, if I wanted to censor you, I'd have deleted the crap you've already put here. Censorship isn't the same as not wanting to have pointless conversations. They're not difficult to tell apart.

Yes, global warming is real. It's extremely basic physics, and supported by an utterly enormous weight of solid scientific evidence. It's VERY EASY to get properly informed on this subject, and it has nothing at all to do with ideology.

If you're thinking of posting arguments about why you think the climate change crisis isn't real, you're in the wrong place. Please reconsider. It's deeply saddening to me that there are so many people who are unable or unwilling to take this very straightforward (though challenging) issue on board. If you honestly can't see that this is a real issue and you want to convince other people to agree with you, you're going to have to find clueless ones with no understanding of atmospheric physics or meterology. There's no point doing that here. I sincerely hope you won't do it anywhere.

These are things you can learn about, from honest and well-informed people, if you care more about the truth than you do about your own preconceptions. There's no excuse for falling for some of the crap that abounds on the internet - there are literally thousands of reliable sources out there. Do yourself a favour.

Anonymous said...

got another question about structure of atom's nucleus. Are protons and neutorns arranged in certain way, or is it impossible to know? How does weak force trigger a decay of an atom?

with regards

Bob said...

Hi Franc

If you're asking about what positions the protons and neutrons take up inside a nucleus, there is no answer to that, because position is a property that emerges at large scales but does not truly exist at small scales.

(If that doesn't seem to make sense, think about the wetness of water - H2O molecules don't have wetness, they're just molecules that vibrate and can bond with other molecules. Wetness is a property that emerges at large scales. You have to be a lot bigger than a molecule for wetness to be a real thing.)

Large scales in comparison to what, you might ask? In comparison to the Compton wavelength. (It's a quantum effect.) A nucleus is very similar size to the Compton wavelength of a proton, so the position of a proton within a nucleus doesn't really have a meaning.

Protons don't have position at that scale. So they can't be 'arranged'.

But... symmetries do make sense in quantum theory, so we can say what shape a nucleus is. Most of them are very close to spherical. Some bulge out at the sides a little, some are wobbly like jellies (the wobbling is insanely fast!), but they're all basically round.

Bob said...

How does the weak force trigger a decay? There's no trigger - it's a quantum version of a damped oscillation. I'll try to explain, but it's only partial, unless you want to learn quantum theory.

The nucleus that is about to decay has more mass than the parts that it is about to decay into. This means it has a little excess energy. As an example of something with excess energy, think of something that oscillates - maybe a pendulum swinging. If there is a way for that energy to dissipate, to spread out, then it will. A pendulum will gradually lose energy because of air resistance. The energy of the pendulum is given to the air molecules - it dissipates, it gets spread out. Eventually all of the energy of the pendulum will be spread through the air (and passed to the walls, to other objects, and to the outside world).

In quantum physics, a very similar thing happens, but it doesn't happen gradually, it happens in one chunk at a random time. The nucleus has extra energy, and at a random time, the energy dissipates. It seems completely different to the pendulum, but imagine you have a million nuclei - now you have something that is continually decaying.

The pendulum is a big thing - it has lots of options of how to spread its energy out in tiny tiny chunks, one air molecule at a time, and to us it looks gradual. A single nucleus doesn't have that option - it either decays or it doesn't. The randomness of the chunks is the quantum part, but on a large scale, with very large numbers of nuclei, it looks like a gradual dissipation of energy.

The mathematics behind nuclear decay and pendulums is surprisingly similar - it's not as random a connection as it might seem.

Where does the weak interaction come in? For the pendulum, the dissipation of energy happens by collisions with air molecules, which is a force in the usual sense of the word - they're hitting each other. In fact it's the electrons of the atoms that are hitting each other, and the force involved is the electromagnetic force.

A force is something that allows energy and momentum to be transferred from one thing to another. For the pendulum, it allows the energy to be transferred from the pendulum to the air molecules. The electromagnetic force gives the pendulum a way of changing, a way of dissipating its energy. If there was no force, there'd be no change.

A carbon-14 nucleus uses the weak force as a way of undergoing its change and dissipating its energy.

Some nuclei use the strong force (alpha decay), a few use the electromagnetic force (gamma decay). Whichever force provides a route for it to dissipate its energy, it will use.

If there are no routes to lower energy states, the nucleus will be stable.

But what triggers it? Nothing. (In quantum field theory, you could say that the vacuum triggers it, via the weak force. There's a lot going on in the vacuum. But that's another story!)

I hope that answers your question! It's a deep question, so I've given a detailed answer. If you take your time, and keep coming back to it on different days and reading again, there are lots of new and challenging and peculiar ideas in this answer which are good for reflecting on and investigating. Nuclear decay is a wonderful part of physics, with lots of gems to offer. The deeper you delve, the more wonderful it gets.

Anonymous said...

ok... so if we take one atom of uranium and bombard it with neutron.. what decides wheather the atom splits or captures a neutron to become an isotope. does the shape of the nucleus and the right timing when the nucleus is hit play any part?

what happens if we strip uranium of all electrons like it can be done with hydrogen? is stripping possible or is there a limit...

thanks for the answers...
with regards

Bob said...

What decides is the strength of the connections between the initial state (a uranium nucleus) and the possible final states (a new isotope of uranium, a split nucleus, or just the same nucleus an a deflected neutron).

If there is a strong connection between the present state and a future state, then it is more likely that the present state will go to that future state. The probability is higher. But it is still random, and it might go to a future state with a less strong connection.

The forces (electromagnetic, strong, weak) and the details of the parameter space in quantum mechanics is what decides the strength of the connections, and which is most likely to occur.

If the uranium absorbs a neutron and becomes a very wildly oscillating nucleus, the oscillations will tear it apart. This is fission.

If it is not so wildly oscillating, then it is more likely to lose its energy by radiating a small particle (alpha, beta, gamma, etc.)

Timing has no role at all. The electrons on the atom play almost no role. As far as nuclear physics is concerned, the electrons might as well not be there. They are very light and very easily stripped away. Electron binding energies (the energies of chemistry) are very tiny compared to the typical energies involved in nuclear reactions (the energies of nuclear physics).

Anonymous said...

so there is no limit.. uranium can be only protons and neutrons.. without any electrons.. so electrons actually have no influence on binding the nucleus.. i thought they might dumpen the positive charge.

would the calculation when the positive charge of protons equals strong force produce the correct limit for the heaviest element possible?

"strong connection between the present state and a future state"
how can there be strong connection between present state and future state? are you taking about best probability to go from one state to another?

Bob said...

Yes, the probability to go from one state to another. In quantum theory, one state can become a new state if there is a connection between them. Think about a uranium nucleus decaying into an iron nucleus and nothing else. You can calculate the connection between the present state (uranium) and the imagined future state (iron) using quantum mechanics. The answer is zero.

When I say connection, the more technical term is 'transition matrix element' or 'transition amplitude'. If it is zero, then the probability of it happening is zero.

The 'forces' (electromagnetic, strong, weak) are what make these connections possible.

The heaviest element possible is much more complicated. Charge isn't a force, it's a quantity. I think you mean electrostatic force. You can GUESS it by making the electrostatic force equal the strong force, but it's only a guess. Very heavy elements have half lives that are much less than one second, because the transition amplitudes for splitting up are very high. They decay quickly. If you keep making them heavier, the half-lives eventually get so short that the nucleus effectively doesn't have chance to 'exist' at all before it has split apart.

To calculate the half-lives, you need the transition amplitudes for all the states it could decay into. This is very complicated when there are hundreds of protons and neutrons in one nucleus - nobody knows how to do it. All we have is guesses.

Anonymous said...

so this probability matrix...
if i have an atom with 10 protons(p) and 10 neutrons(n) and it splits:

proba. matrix would be smth like this:
1 p 10n : 9p 0n = 0%
1 p 9n : 1p 1n = 0.331%

etc, etc...

how did science get the %? trial and error?

Anonymous said...

last line 1p 9n : 9p 1n

Bob said...

That's the kind of thing, yes.

The transition matrix isn't a probability matrix, though, it's a probability amplitude matrix. The probability amplitude is a complex number. If you square the magnitude of that number, you will get a probability. In nuclear and particle physics, it's called the branching fraction.

The amplitudes are predicted by quantum theory, so it isn't trial and error. These calculations are not possible for nuclei that haven't yet been observed, though. Nuclear physicists need to observe the nuclei to get a reliable measure of its energy levels, the nuclear spin of each energy level, etc. Without knowing what the different states are, the theory can't give transition amplitudes for going between them.

Quantum theory can reliably tell you when something is completely impossible. If there are more than two pieces, quantum theory also tells you how often they will decay at particular angles to each other, and how the energy will split between the parts.

Anonymous said...

chewing on the answers... kind of not "pleased" with nothing triggers the weak force.. can science say anything more about this.. am aware that in vacuum there's constant bubbling of virtual particle pairs.. do they accidently bump the transition?

thanks for the answers..

Bob said...

Oh yes, science can say plenty about it in its own language, which is a quantum language. That's why physicists bother learning it - they don't do it for fun :)

(Most of them don't, anyway. There are always a few oddballs...)

There are various ways of trying to describe what's going on without using quantum theory, but none of them are exactly what's going on. They aren't to be taken literally.

But I think what you've said there is probably as close as you can get: virtual particles from the vacuum trigger it. If you're happy to picture them bubbling away continuously in the vacuum, and with the trigger being accidental, then that's pretty good.

Anonymous said...

Hello Bob,

I would like to thank you for the reality check you gave me about two years ago when i came in contact with Nassim Haramein's presentation. Letting my wishes and daydreaming alter my perception of reality, i believed said presentation to the point of recommending it to other people. Then at some point i stumbled upon your blog. After reading a bit i started to get red with shame because i realized i didnt check anything he said, being absorbed by the beautiful story that he so masterfully unfolded and more over i passed it happily on to others. Then all the little things that didnt seem to add up but i ignored anyway started to emerge and itch and demand attention. In the wake of scrutinizing his presentation with wishful thinking gone and going back to the math and physics manuals from highschool in order to re-orient myself in the said fields, the blatant mistakes/misinterpretations/misuse in the presentation became flaring. I didnt even need to calculate complex stuff when the basic stuff which i can recognize and understand (and your math and explanations helped a lot) was sufficient to help me realize what kind of cake i have been served. This was a fairy-tale not a scientific discovery. And this guy surely knows how to spin it. He got me believing it and recommending him and if it weren't for you waking me up, probably i would still have made myself look like a loon on a few occasions still. I still shiver when i realize i was played with at this level to the point of making myself ignore basic knowledge of biology and physics. During my education I saw cells through a microscope. Yep plenty of black holes there. And event horizons through which i looked and saw the cell nuclei and the organelles. I'm still ashamed. This is akin to David Icke stuff. Lizardmen from other dimensions and earth-martians and conspiracies and the whole meal for the fairy-tale hungry. Kuato Lives!

When you present a fairy-tale as science and try to gain financial resources out of it by misleading people it becomes fraud, trickery. Whatever you want to call it, the concept remains the same. Taking advantage of other people's lack of knowledge/attention for personal gain. Doing this to people intentionally is more akin to the animal regnum than to human society in my views, because it implies lack of self respect and respect for others. This brings me to the second thing i want to thank you for, which is the true global community service that you are doing over here for free, a statement to the level of developement of your personality. Truly admirable, hope-giving and inspiring. I would most certainly avoid being the one to show otherwise to people of true and strong faith as the ones that completely immerse themselves in such, yet im thankful that you took it upon yourself and thats why i hold your example as a personal inspiration.
Thats why, when I remembered you and i saw that the thread is still active, i decided to overcome my shame and to atone for an unsaid and more than deserved Thank you, on behalf of both myself and the ones that need your help the most.

George Gabriel

Bob said...

Wow. Thanks George!

I agree with you that what Haramein is doing requires a serious lack of self-respect and respect for others.

The problem is that he's so good at giving the appearance of empowering people, when in fact the illusion relies entirely on people believing whatever he tells them - the exact opposite of empowerment.

I don't think there should be any shame in being affected by this. What he does is very cleverly disguised. He knows the trick for making sure people don't even notice that they're blindly following what he says. The trick is to pretend that he's revealing things they always sort of knew in their innermost core.

It's very difficult to notice that happening to you. And it's almost impossible to discuss it with someone who's fallen for it, because if you disagree with them, they feel that you're arguing against their innermost core. It feels like a personal attack on them. It must be very unpleasant for them, unless they put a huge wall up against it.

So it doesn't surprise me that some people can be so antagonistic. I sympathise with them a lot (though I do run out of patience sometimes too!). That's why I wrote the blog. I don't want anyone to look back and feel ashamed.

It's good to know it works for some people :)

Mani said...

Not really sure what harm Nassim Haramein has done sharing 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. You already posted that comment here. My response is underneath.

Harmony I said...

Have you spoken to Nassim in person? Have you gone to Hawaii to see the Resonance Project in action? No? Then how can you even speculate on anything? I currently live on-site as an intern and Nassim, his work, this farm, this project...are far from fraudulent.

Bob said...

Hello Harmony

I don't have any quarrel with you, or with Nassim's character as someone to work with, or with his farm, or with any of his interns or helpers or staff. These are things I know nothing about, and people I have never met. I would never make any claims about fraudulence for things I have never seen.

I have seen his physics claims, though. He makes them publicly, he puts his work out publicly. We can talk about the physics if you like - I'd be very happy to. I have read his work, seen his talks, and I understand the technical side of his papers. He uses the language of physics, which is a language I know very well.

What I can see is that most of it is incompetent, and most of the parts that are not incompetent are outright lies.

It's possible that you may not agree with this. If so, then I'd love to discuss it further, if you think I am missing the point with any of the physics claims he makes. Please do say more.

I can understand that you might think meeting the man and seeing his farm might make me like the things he is doing. I live on a farm. I like healthy food and good work and inspiring people. If you like healthy food and good work and inspiring people then I'd probably like you too.

Here's the thing: he is making a name for himself by deceiving people into thinking that he is a scientific pioneer, but he knows that he is not. However nice he is to you and the people around him, however much you might not like it being said, the physics claims he is making are lies, and they are fraudulent.

You're right to question me and interrogate me if you believe I am out of line - I'd love to hear your thoughts about his physics. I respect and welcome open discussion.

If you're here just to tell me that I shouldn't call him a fraud because his staff are nice and you like him and he says inspiring things, then that isn't ok. The fact that someone seems nice to you doesn't mean I should not tell the world about the lies they spin for a living.

I know how much he has raised by lying about his new film. I know there isn't a single page of his quantum gravity paper that doesn't contain outright lies. I know that he had it published in a fake physics journal. I know that he is very good at inspiring people to believe in the things that he says.

It's the physics claims he uses to sell his ideas that I am calling fraudulent, and incompetent, and deceitful. Not anything else.

I hope that's ok with you.

Bob said...

When someone comments to say "how can you criticise...", I always like to assume that it's a genuine question, and I always hope it will start a challenging conversation with real content, and that I can learn something.

I never want it to be someone who's just having a strop, saying how dare I say anything critical about something they like. I never want it to be someone with no interest in being open to engage with anything that challenges their prejudices.

Come on, Harmony. You can do this...

wRaz said...

Science is a method. It consists (do not take my credit for it) in hypothesizing and testing those hypothesis. Once a result is taken, we check against the initial hypothesis. If the results are positive towards the initial hypothesis, we publish the results and wait for results from peers to understand how far our personal bias goes. Science has helped Humanity cross over into the realm of reason, so let's be reasonable.
Now, I am no scientist, however I do follow all I have the interest to, as well as the time, and the thing I hate most is to follow those charlatans that start to pose a wonderful idea and then go completely out of the scientific boundaries. Don't get me wrong, I love new age stuff as I love sci-fi, but I do not have the time for things that fall out of our scientific-method. I am perfectly aware that there are certain fields which pose "National Security threads" and "uninteresting for the elites and their power agenda"... Yes, that's definitely real and a bit of History will easily show you many cases of such. However, if it ain't well hypothesized and tested, it ain't science at all. Let's not wast more time on that, and since I have a full time job, every minute I waste on pseudo-science is a minute I've lost on real science. So, I've developed a way to be selective. I've came across Nassim's stuff quite a while, since I wanted to address what's our current state of affairs on Consciousness studies. My first line of defence is to check the math completely through. So I did it... but... got no math at all, just something that looked like numerology or stuff. I don't like when people say "this is the base of the Universe" and throw up a pentagram or a dodecahedron... well, as far as one might think that such could actually be the geometric base of the Universe, we're about more then 1000 years before such is discovered - it just ain't enough to point, you need to at least develop a consistent "explanatory basis" and lend some logic into it (go check what axioms and postulates are.

wRaz said...

I believe we're a legacy species from Interstellar travellers, and I base that in multiple fringe science (I could present more then a dozen of papers from scientists that would credit my ideas - and no, it's not based on Velikovsky alone, yet comparative Mythology is a powerful tool), I would never hypothesize such in an open scientific literature, because I'm biased towards it, and if I did so, I would inevitably NEED to explain that in the beginning, so that all my colleges understood the mind-set that germinated such ideas. Indeed the hard part for society is to actually get pass the bias and even the prejudice of labelling such individuals as BIASED into incompetence. I do find that when most mainstream science is stalled, we might need a push from someone who thinks differently (such as Einstein, Ernst Florens Chladni, Tesla and so many others born slightly ahead of their time - some succeeded while others remain unknown - and how about the role of woman in Science? do you know any brilliant woman scientist?). The world is full of examples of brilliant people that were burnt or mocked (Giordano Bruno), and full of empty other that were worshipped and admired beyond reason. Such activities certainly have thrown us hundreds of years (if not thousands) back in our present understanding of Nature around us.
The sad fact is that our society is completely BIASED itself. How come we can expect a completely free Scientific Inquiry when even the most brilliant people on the pinnacles of Science are Biased? When we can't research a unified theory of EM-Gr because... come on... funding it is pointless because... even Einstein didn't got it, how do you expect to beat him? Who would fund research for Zero-Point Energy? Who would expect that funding for a research group aimed at "resources management" and "monetary evolution" at planetary level would actually happen?
For anything to be researched now-a-days you need funding. If it ain't for profit of the few with money to invest, why would it be funded at all? Do you really believe in philanthropy? Yet, instead of focusing on the actual problems of science, we're trying to understand who's the one to be credit for actual science? Yeah and I still wonder why the heck we're still struggling...
The reason I get sooo angry at people such as Nassim, is that they deviate us, the ones that are auto-didactics, from the real juicy stuff into muddy sands... and no good comes from that other then precious time lost in this life-time. However, it has been always like that. The charlatans just evolve their lexicon into the things modern science throws at us. Do you even know where "QUANTUM" comes from really? Quantum is Latin to "How Many" or "Each", as particles become "Quanta", undivided, become multiples of 1 (meaning 1, or 2 or 3 or n.1). If an electron has X electric charge, then you cannot have (1/2).x but only n.x (such as 1X, 2X, 3X, 4X and so on - generalized as N.X). So if some charlatan talks about "Quantic Consciousness" do think about what the heck he's trying to tell you... (well, I do believe Quantum computers - here as computers that harness the Quantum Mechanics realm computational power - will give us some funny insights over the nature of Consciousness, and I delightfully wait for such a time when a Quantum computer gets to really fully function, but besides that, Consciousness is a whole different beast from Quantum world, yet they are interlinked as Nature is itself - and this is obvious enough I suppose). As such lexicon missuses are not that obvious at first, they become funny misconceptions once you delve into the etymology of lexicon. Everything must have a reason and be reasonable.

Thank you bob for pointing out the obvious. Now let's talk about actual science please.

Bob said...

Hi wRaz

Glad we agree that Haramein's pseudoscience has no substance.

The rest of your comments is a promotion of your personal approach to the philosophy of science. When someone has views that are not science – you know, some kind of story that hey like – it becomes very tempting to embark on a project of opening up a big gash in the philosophy of science itself, in order to slot their story in alongside accepted science.

You know that if you present your story to academic scientists, it would be thrown out. You (presumably) also know that if you present your philosophy of science to academic philosophers, it would be thrown out too. There are many very good reasons for this... all I can suggest is that you seek out those reasons, listen to them, learn from them.

Some things to reflect on:

Human curiosity and reasoning does not direct any of us towards truth, it directs us towards stories that personally satisfy us.

Our intuition that we are on the right track does not tell us about truth, it tells us how personally satisfying our stories are to us.

Curiosity and reasoning and intuition are essential to kickstart any approach to uncovering truth about the world, but we are fools if we think we can rely on them to keep carrying us forward. Something much more substantial is necessary, otherwise the only thing we'll uncover is stories that feel right to us, and the only thing we'll develop is an arsenal of reasoning as to why people who don't accept our story are wrong.

wRaz said...

Hi Bob!

Spot on!
I must emphasize I'm no Scientist nor Philosopher. But you knew that already I'm sure (otherwise, I would be much more careful in my "bias presentation"). I also didn't want to promote my view, sorry if it seamed that way. I just wanted to present my bias. Fortunately I am a visual artist for 3D and VFX stuff :) so no harm made here (I won't start a cult I can assure you).
Quoting your paragraph "You know that if you present your story to academic scientists, it would be thrown out." I just want to say I obviously know that... Hence I didn't followed (or even tried) a "theoretical physics career". However... I do have a couple of arguments to be made as you noticed.

All this seams at first little to do with the topic, the idea is that you can still follow beliefs and curiosities, however as you correctly said a line must be drawn and indeed in that "something much more substantial" "thing". Mathematics is a good such "thing", a good way to predict Nature, and if Nature indeed follows Mathematics all the way through (Brian Greene said something very insightful about that on "is Math the language of Nature?" ) we're good to proceed.
Nassim is just an extreme and reckless guy with nothing substantial whatsoever to back his claims (yeah, less careful then what I am for sure, since I am careful enough to at least read papers and distinguish between funny appealing ideas and full constructed theories). When I see that numerology of god creating a worm hole, then I might look into it more deeply, but until there, I am just sceptic (indeed I plan not to write any further about it hehe).

Anyway, thanks for your criticism, and I do understand where my rhetoric went wrong... I could debate about those, but... as funny as that might be, this is not the place.

I appreciate your blog and will definitely check it once and a while.
Keep up Bob!

Bob said...

Hi wRaz

"that "something much more substantial" "thing". Mathematics is a good such "thing", a good way to predict Nature" - I disagree... mathematics is a powerful method of reasoning, but if we want to understand nature it still lacks substance. I think there can only be one way to tell whether an idea that you have about nature is a faithful and reliable reflection of nature, and that is to observe nature very carefully and see if it agrees.

Brian Greene gives examples of mathematics leading to excellent models of nature in physics... there is no denying that these examples exist. What he doesn't give are examples of mathematics that have led to entirely false models of nature in physics. There are many, many more examples of the latter than of the former!

If you replace the words "mathematics" with "intuition" in the previous paragraph, you might see that it's the same message.

(He also gives examples of existing physical models - which employ mathematical reasoning - correctly predicting new phenomena, such as general relativity predicting the existence of black holes. This is very different to mathematics itself correctly predicting physical models.)

Does nature follow mathematics all the way through? Mathematics is nothing more or less than the study of patterns in the abstract. If there are patterns in what we observe of nature, and we want to characterise those patterns, then we can't help using mathematics. So I don't think it's remarkable that mathematics is a good language with which to study the laws of nature. What I do think is remarkable is that some very significant aspects of what we observe of nature contains patterns that can be described using mathematics that is simple enough for humans to figure out.

wRaz said...

Obviously the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Mathematics (until you develop "statistical" approaches to analyse data), as well as palaeontology and many others... they rely only in observations, deductions and inferences, but I am biased towards theoretical physics heh. Sorry, I tend to only see that point of view. In a sence, I don't recall reading a paper about physics that had not math at all...

Bob, but... for you, does Mathematics stems out of intuition? How do you see the Platonic concept of Mathematics (for instance, the fact that the Pythagorean theorem is in fact present in the descriptions of our geometry, or to be even more fascinating, the fact that complex numbers play such a role in modern physics).

I've read Roger Penrose... and well... I think Mathematics is a human construction (no doubt) that is so abstract and "precise" that any sentient being anywhere on the Universe can agree upon with us. In my sci-fi writings, I've came to wonder if an ET would ask a Human "please, provide me with the set of axioms you have found and I'll have a mathematical dialogue with you" heh.

Indeed there is a very tiny portion of Mathematics that explains the physical world, yet, the physical world contains the structures that create the mind, and the mind through insight creates Mathematics. Now... they all are a sub-group of each other in a direction, and in the other direction, they only "contain" part of each. That's a paradox if you think logically about it. How come the Mind, existing in the Physical Realm encompass much more information and Models then there actually is in Reality? There's something about the Mind that supersedes Reality, thus being able to harness the power of Mathematics and Logic. Yet, Mind exists only in Reality (or does it? - we have only our material observations to infer that).
In a sense, Math steams out of Mind, and can explain a little of Reality. Should we really be that astonished at how sentient beings are able to figure out patterns from a Universe filled with pattern-like riddles and that has "insight" and "intuition" in it's fundamentals? I don't care about theology nor myth in this idea, my intuition here is that we're in the presence of something vastly bigger, more mysterious then what we currently know off... there is something about the insight we have that doesn't quite fit into our idea of "Intelligence". We will never be able to produce Algorithms that can scout the whole of Knowledge and create new axioms, fine-tune existing ones and understand Reality. There is a problem with how we can understand all the variables of a system. There are some that will invariably remain hidden if we continue to use our tool kit of knowledge (I'm touching "Gödel's theorem).
My curiosity has led me to think that we certainly need to be humble about where the future will lead us. But not so open as to throw up all we know as asked by some cult-leaders hehe.

We need to think more about the fundamentals of Mind - Reality if we want to open up new doors into what it is we're experiencing (be it the idea of Holographic Universe, a Matrix like Universe or a Buddhist like Universe). We need to keep our eyes opened to the idea that what we perceive, measure and intellectually touch with our Mind might not be all there is (damn... and we know for a fact that indeed there is something that doesn't interact with matter that accounts for so much more of Reality then what we actual thought - dark matter).

This is thin ground I'm walking here I know, but... what a heck! If I think about those, I'd better discuss it with someone.

Bob said...

It's all great stuff to think about.

As I said, there's a massive difference between (a) mathematics leading to the development of a reliable physical model (which is very rare in comparison to mathematics leading to the development of a model that doesn't work at all) and (b) physical models employing mathematics (which is inevitable, because mathematics is the study of patterns, and physical models are all about patterns in the natural world, such as relationships between measurable cause and effect).

People like Penrose and Greene love to hype use (a). Both have spent their lives developing creative speculative ideas about the world, very few of which have translated to the observable world in any way at all.

"for you, does Mathematics stems out of intuition?" - mathematics has a complex relationship with intuition. I don't think that's where it comes from, that's way too solipsistic. But intuition is definitely involved in generating new ideas, and a very large part of the process of learning mathematics and physics is training the intuition to become familiar with new conceptual landscapes. I think that's a psychological question, not a question about the philosophy of mathematics or science.

The concept of counting numbers is naturally intuitive to us because it's one that is readily useful in our lives. Even if you can't count, it's an empirical fact that if you have six pebbles in your pocket, you can pass them one at a time through your fingers as you point one at a time to your six sheep, and you'll know that you have all your sheep. And it isn't special to your pebbles - you know that if you use your pebbles to 'count' a set of beans, you can then use your set of beans to check that you have all your sheep. And it isn't special to your sheep either. There's a property called 'six' that your pebbles will always work for. It's an empirical fact that this is a reliable way of knowing whether something has gone missing (or whether something new has arrived from elsewhere).

This process of pairing up (this sheep with this pebble, that sheep with that pebble, etc. until all are done) is a mathematical axiom just the same as any other - it's the usefulness to everyday things that makes it seem obvious to us. Most people leave school having developed a reasonable level of intuition about negative numbers too, because by teenage we have encountered many everyday examples where they're useful and reliable. They enter our intuition easily that way. Imaginary numbers are no more or less strange than negative ones, but fewer people embark on the kind of activities in which they are useful and reliable, so fewer people think of them as normal. I rely on them every day, so they're as 'real' to me as the number six.

They're all just ways of dealing with patterns.

Bob said...

Some mathematical axioms are very effective in dealing with patterns in the real world. It might take you a decade of intense study to gain some practical intuition into how the axioms of connections on principle bundles relate to the ways in which particles interact with one another, but for some people it's their bread and butter. Once it's natural and familiar, creativity starts flowing using those concepts, and you'll start having insights into particle theory that occasionally actually bear out in the real world. Really it's no different than getting used to 'six' - it just takes a lot more practice because (for obvious reasons) our brains haven't evolved to adapt to it naturally.

Other mathematical axioms aren't of any use for patterns in the real world at all. They're just useful for patterns among other bits of mathematics. Or perhaps they make patterns that nobody has seen before, which might be of interest to other mathematicians who are looking for patterns to explore. Connections on principle bundles weren't developed for particle theory. They were developed long before that, by mathematicians driven by curiosity. Particle physicists had never heard of them. When they needed to describe what they were seeing, they struggled for years until someone realised that the language had already been developed.

There are lots of examples like this in physics. It's fascinating, but I don't think there's anything mystical about it, and I don't think it makes nature 'mathematical'. Nature is either made of patterns (relationships with some structure that we can learn something about) or it isn't. If it wasn't then there would be no organisms able to develop and pass on useful information and structure through time. There are obviously patterns and structure in nature, so patterns and structure is an obvious thing to investigate. When this is done abstractly, we call it mathematics. Is it any wonder that mathematics fits nature so well? How could it not.

Many concepts of mathematics have been crucial to our survival as a species. As well as a good sense of number, we have an intuitive grasp of distance, time, the magnitude and direction of travel, the magnitude and direction of forces, the strength of materials, bigger and smaller, etc. etc. We couldn't have evolved as complex organisms without our brains developing a natural competence with these concepts. Is it any wonder that mathematics seems compatible with our minds? How could it not be.

It's very nice that the structure of matter at scales way beyond anything our evolution has prepared us for can be described by mathematics, but it shouldn't surprise us. The thing that we should probably find amazing is that human beings are capable of understanding it. It's extremely difficult, but if we work together and encourage a few freaky folk to devote their lives to understanding the connections on principle bundles, then collectively we have the ability to deal with particles just as competently as we can count our sheep.

mw said...

That recent interchange between you Bob and wRaz seems about much more than Haramein.

As you said, mathematics is about patterns which are capable of being described in terms of the mathematical symbols that have been created over time to suit their purpose. And so, if a set of symbols can be related to a phenomenon in reality, this does not mean anything in reality can be expressed through such symbols. It’s the other side of the syllogism coin (ie, “All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore ...”).

The problem with reality is that its manifestations occur in terms of complex, dynamic systems, and our mind has evolved being trained in conceptualising reality in terms of linear systems. Which works up to a point (certainly enough for our survival in this world), but it will never tell us the whole story. One example is the weather. No matter how many data, how powerful the supercomputers processing those data, mathematically exact predictions are impossible.

But in terms of patterns we understand much about the weather. And if we want to muse about the role of the mind in all this, how such a system is able to already understand so much about reality (and we haven’t finished yet) then it helps to understand the system of mind; yet another complex, dynamic system par excellence.

Perhaps wRaz would like to check out my website, going by his remarks he might find something useful.

wRaz said...

mw: Well, there's only one thing to say about the original topic theme, and that's more then said. I'll explore the website for sure. That's an impressive CV I must say.
I must say I am always very suspicious about AI strictly done by gates, cpu's and normal computer circuits. I believe we need some sort of quantum processing and quantum problem solving (the other set of computer science problems that current tech can't efficiently handle) to be able to get close to the "insight" in a machine setup. But unfortunately I cannot pursue this ideas due to my lack of time in investigating through this theme further. The reason I think that is that althou one can argue a computer can be instructed with an algorithm, does it really "understand" it? No... it understands that algorithm as I understand my bosses orders. There is no insight in the way a computer program handles the information. Yet a kid, when he learns that 1 can represent a pencil, and that 1+1 = 2, then 2 represents 2 pencils, get's the insight of what 2 really means. But a computer can deceive us as google translate can pretend we know a couple of languages. There is no meaning, only function, and insight needs both. But anyway, I'll walk through that website. I am certain I will find something useful for sure.

bob: actually, connections on principle bundles is where I'm going next (I'm reviewing Algebra on manifolds... all those indexes, scalars and torsion vectors - one has to laugh at these words when one really dives into these subjects, as you know there are also people arguing about "scalar physics" would love to know your take on it, but let's not clutter this topic any more).
I've learned most of my physics these couple of years and perhaps I'm still on the first year undergraduate (for sure!), but I've transversally went about all up to QM, QFT, EM, having to learn all about Calculus, and stepping into Manifolds for particle interactions. I really really want to know what the heck is that electron spin, and why the heck quarks come in three species. But those 10 years prediction were a little uncomfortable.

Anyway great talk!

phxmarker mark said...

Nassim Haramein's work is 100% based on Einstein's Field Equations (General Relativty). Bob, you are saying Einstein's equations have failed. Please do your homework.

Bob said...

Um, no. Haramein's work is largely based on misunderstandings and things he just made up. Don't blame Einstein for Haramein's work being a pile of shite.

Anonymous said...

bob your wrong....people like Bob are full of BS....e.g. physics still teaches that the speed of light is a constant,,,what BS..nassim questions everything....bob believes the lying physicists from days gone by.

Bob said...

Physics isn't a faith, it's a method of finding out how the physical world behaves by looking at it and seeing what it does. And by questioning everything. The worst thing any physicist can do is "believe".

But you're welcome to make up whatever you like about me - it's fairly standard for comments on here. Haramein's supporters seem to be much more drawn to little made-up stories than the rest of the population.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Bob for this post and your dedication in answering comments. Because once the initial point of Nassim being a fraud has been clear, there's only so much more to say about it, but I found some of your answers, like your views of mathematics a few posts above, much more interesting to read.

I somehow always hope when I see something like Haramein's presentation that there is some truth to it, and being in a domain I really know very little about (I worked mostly in cell biology and studying viral dna) I can't tell intuitively if what he says holds up or not so I have to go read about it in more details, and I have yet to not be thoroughly disappointed by what I find.

But it's thanks to people like you taking the time to go about it in details and giving me the chance to see what kind of answers the original "scientist" give to it (usually something that is clearly aimed to satisfy someone without any real scientific knowledge but that lets all the serious scientific questions hanging) that I can make up my mind. In this case if there is any truth to what he said (and that would be through pure luck, certainly not his scientific method of claiming it) then someone else will discover it properly some day.

I won't waste any more time listening to stuff coming from him be it right or wrong because I won't be able to tell, but having published papers I certainly know that the way he bypassed the processes involved in a serious peer-review while claiming otherwise has no respect for the scientific method whatsoever. If you believe in what you wrote you WANT your peers to review it and try to demolish it and if they can't, then you know you're on to something and not just believing your own self-made story.

Anyway, I could ramble for a while, but in short thank you for this and other writings you made here, it's all very interesting and greatly appreciated.


Anonymous said...

Hi there,

I am a bit confused that you did not address the central finding of the paper; that is that the mass of the proton can be precisely calculated from its charge radius by using planck's constant and and the speed of light. I understand that he uses language that isn't necessarily appropriate for the context (ie his use of the word black hole which is your central critique of the paper), but you should at least take the time to plug the numbers in to understand the consequences of his findings.

Using substitution, Haramein's solution for the proton mass can be found to be
m_p = (4*h_bar) / (c*r_p)

where m_p is proton mass, h_bar is reduced planck's constant, c is speed of light, and r_p is the proton charge radius.

Note that when Haramein first published this solution, his result was only within 4% of the CODATA value for the proton mass. However, after the newly updated more precise muon measurement technique for the proton radius which was published in 2010, his formula is now within .07% of the CODATA value. It would appear that this formula has some significance assuming the newly updated value from the 2010 muonic measurement is closer to the true value. If we find a solution to the proton radius measurement puzzle soon, the situation should be clarified further as to the significance of Haramein's formula.

Perhaps this formula is already well known, but I have not found it from a brief literature search. It is so simple that I would imagine it would be listed on wikipedia's page for the proton if it were a well known result. If you could point me to the publication that would be greatly appreciated.

Given the formula's accuracy, I see no reason to bar this paper from publication. Perhaps he could change the wording to clarify his notion of a black hole in order to distinguish it from the black hole from General relativity.

Bob said...

Hi Anonymous,

The quantity h_bar / (c*r_p) has been well-known for a century - it's called the reduced Compton wavelength of the proton. The quantity Haramein calculated, which you note above, is just 4 times this.

Haramein had no idea that this is what he had calculated in his paper, he thought it was the charge radius. The numbers may be surprisingly similar, but so what. This quantity has nothing to do with charge.

It might not sound like a big deal, but it's difficult to get across how incompetent this is for someone who calls himself a physicist.

I did 'plug in the numbers'. Better than that, I redid Haramein's algebra properly to get under the skin of what he was actually calculating. I don't call something out unless I know precisely what I'm talking about. Here are some notes that I hope you will find helpful.

Note that Haramein was using the 2010 muonic hydrogen measurement when he wrote his paper. He was able to look around for a number that was close to his number (which he didn't realise was just 4 times the reduced Compton wavelength) and hit on one that seemed spookily close. It's an example of numerology, not physics.

The paper is peppered with outlandishly pretentious claims, of quantum gravity, information theory, holographic theory, on and on and on. If they're not flat lies, they're the utterings of a buffoon. It's not an honest mistake to claim to be drawing on a long list of hot branches of physics when none of them are employed in the calculation at all.

There are more reasons to reject this paper than anything else of Haramein's. It says a lot about the people who published it that they weren't able to tell or just didn't care how bad it was.

I sympathise with people who come across it through a genuine curiosity about the fascinating universe they inhabit. I know it's a bit niche to be very familiar with this material, and of course I don't expect it of people who read his work, which is why I want to help if I can.

What he did is inexcusable. It's a serious abuse of trust for him to have put this out to his fans, and to still be pushing it and milking it five years later.

Bob said...

My apologies, I got r_p and m_p mixed in the formula I gave above. The formula you quoted can be rearranged to give

r_p = (4*h_bar) / (c*m_p)

which is four times the reduced Compton wavelength. Hope that clears up any confusion.

Post a Comment

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