Tuesday, June 08, 2010

What's so misleading about Nassim Haramein?

"If a planet suddenly stopped spinning it would explode"
NH explains his Grand Unified Field Theory (here).

I've said a number of times that Nassim Haramein is misleading people, and I'd like to try to make it crystal clear why. 

Traducción al español y la discusión aquí.

Have a quick browse, or have a good old read... it's up to you.

I'm aiming to encourage people to think carefully about what he is telling them. I'm not out to discourage people from trying out any promising new ideas – what I want is to help people question what's out there for themselves. If they want to, of course. You may choose to disagree with my assessment of Haramein. I'm interested in your reasons if you want to share them.

Of course you're also free to doubt my assessment of my own motivations if you like – that doesn't bother me at all. All I ask is that you check out what I'm saying, and see if any of it fits with what you know.

There is no doubt that Haramein is a very talented communicator. It's clear that he's learned some very interesting facts and is eager to share them. But there are some very serious questions about his understanding and his integrity.

There are two things that it seems Haramein does, time and time again, that I feel no-one with any integrity should ever do:
  1. He misunderstands the most basic ideas of physics in video presentations and interviews, and presents papers that are flawed throughout;
  2. and at the same time, he claims to have insights into the problems that the top physicists in the world are currently working on, and to be solving fundamental issues in physics.
For me, anyone who can do both these things – whether it is deliberate or not – is acting irresponsibly and is misleading people. Surely if anyone is suggesting such a view of Haramein, and giving sound reasons for it, it should be taken seriously.

Below are some examples.


1. The hype and the Schwarzschild Proton

Haramein recently wrote a paper called The Schwarzschild Proton. The paper is full of assertions that conflict with what we know about protons and black holes.

(You can check out my analysis of that paper here if you want – I'm very open to challenges if you feel I've made any errors or false assumptions. I think it's pretty watertight.)

Here's one example:


a. The force between protons

(Please bear with me on this one, it's nothing complicated.)

Haramein's calculation of the force that holds two protons together in a nucleus, using his theory, gives a force of 7.49 x 10^47 dynes. To see why this is silly, all you need to do is look at what a dyne is, and try to find something comparable.

If I turned Mount Everest upside down and balanced it on my head, it would crush me with a force of 10^21 dynes.

If I stood one metre from a 50 megaton thermonuclear bomb and let it off, it would blast me with a force of about 10^22 dynes.

Haramein's result is more than a million million million million times bigger than either of these forces! How can this be the force holding protons together? You can separate protons from a nucleus by tapping them with a tiny electron in a small accelerator.

The issue here is not so much that he got something wrong, but that he is capable of presenting a theory in all seriousness that gives results that are so far from reality without even stopping to notice. If you're trying to present a theory that's supposed to represent reality, surely you would ensure that you (a) understand what your answers mean, and (b) take every opportunity to compare them with the real world?

This isn't the only example – There are many others. He also tells us that every atom of our body contains protons which have a mass of 885 million tonnes each. That ought to raise a few (very heavy) eyebrows too. [1]


b. Introducing the theory to the world: He's literally mathematically proved it!

Below is a clip in which Haramein introduces The Schwarzschild Proton theory at a "free energy" conference in 2009. [2]


At 4 minutes in he tells us, with his usual charm, how his genius enabled him to transcend mainstream physics. He goes on to say that he has some "new material which solves the equation that proves – literally, mathematically proves – that every single atom you're made of is a mini black hole."

He is talking about the same paper on the Schwarzschild Proton, the one that is full of discrepancies from reality. He does make some vague claims in it, but nowhere does he even mention 'proving' anything whatsoever. So why is he saying these things?

Is he blind enough to actually believe he's proved something, or is he deliberately misleading?
I don't know.

If you skip to 6:30, you'll find him explaining why it's important that he can prove that we're all one with the universe (and the vacuum energy). "Not one in an esoteric way that's not really palpable, that's not really able to be understood, but one with everything in an actual physical and mathematical way that I can write an equation and tell you why."

Of course he can't write any such equation – it's completely false. But what he says next explains why he wants to so badly:

"Because if we can write the equation, if we can make the mainstream scientific community understand the theoretical functions of it, then we stand a chance to be able to apply it in the most powerful way to our society"

This is very flawed way of getting people to do what you want. If you have results, you don't need to fabricate an equation for them – just present the results. If you don't have results (and he doesn't), why would making something up that has equations in it make it any better?

Science doesn't – will never and should never – work by someone having a 'vision' which he has convinced himself is the truth, and then trying to force some equations to fit the fantasy without any respect for evidence or for reasoning. Especially if in the meantime they go around claiming they've already proved it. Equations aren't a means of rhetoric. At least they're not in any decent society. In some messed-up world where people are encouraged to worship the equation despite not understanding what it means or what it implies, perhaps they are becoming a means of rhetoric.

If the aim is to influence scientists, it's not very clever.

I encourage you to watch the whole video, to check that I'm not taking these statements out of context. (He's a good speaker, isn't he. Good at emotionally charging what he says with promises of a magic perfect future, so that you actually really want to ignore any doubts you might have, and just believe it all.)


2. Misunderstanding basic physics

Haramein can often be seen in video presentations misunderstanding some basic ideas in physics so naively that it's amazing nobody in the audience said anything.

a. The "first law of physics"



Here's one. It's from his 8-hour presentation at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library in 2003. It's a long time ago, but this remains the most popular of Haramein's presentations on the internet.

Skip to 3:00 and he's quoting Newton's 3rd law of motion (which he refers to as "first law of physics") – every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Here's a good place to learn about it (perfect if you're under the age of ten).

Of course not everybody knows or cares about Newton's laws of motion – but remember this man claims to be a world-leading physicist. (Indeed, in this clip he gloats about how his "first law of physics" insight stopped all the other physicists in the room in their tracks... I can't help feeling that if they had "blank look on their faces" it might not have been for the reason he's suggesting.)

This law explicitly only applies to forces on a pair of interacting objects. If I kick a brick, the brick exerts a force back on my foot and it hurts. If I shoot a bullet from a gun (not that I ever have or would), there's a recoil. If I catch a baseball, hand applies slowing force to ball, ball applies hitting force to hand. That kind of thing.

Instead of this, he uses it for the volume of space in the Universe, which is about as far from Newton's 3rd law as it's possible to get. There are many, many reasons why this is silly.

Why would something need to contract anyway? If space itself expands, then there just is more space. Why would anything need to contract to make room for it? [3]

Seven years later, he's still milking the same story, and still misusing the same piece of 8th grade physics. [Sorry – that video seems to have been removed since I provided this link]

The point is that he's using this law despite it being completely irrelevant. He uses it to 'prove' that "obviously something is contracting". This becomes a big theme in many of his other ideas. There's nothing 'obvious' about it – unless your version of obvious is feeling like "yeah, looks obvious to me, and you look like you're convinced so I'll go with it."

It's terrible misinformation. I think people deserve better than this.


b. Why the night sky is black

Here's another example, again from his Rogue Valley presentation.



Skip to 2:25 and you'll find the following description of the Universe:

"The mass inside the Universe exceeds the escape velocity of light. That means if you shine a light in one direction... it'll bend around one star, bend around another star, bend around another star... and come right back! That means we live inside a black hole. That's why when you look up in the sky at night, it's black."

First off, a mass can't exceed an escape velocity. That's like saying there's more corn in your barn than the national speed limit – it doesn't make sense. I think he's trying to say that there is so much mass in the Universe that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Perhaps it just came out mangled.

Secondly, he's describing a closed universe, which all observations in the last ten years seem to suggest is nothing like the one we live in. Thirdly, even if we do live in a closed universe, that doesn't mean light bounces around stars and comes back to you at all – it means that everything ultimately falls together in a big crunch at the end of time. (Kind of a re-union with the light, I suppose... but nothing like he makes it sound.) And fourthly, a closed universe isn't a black hole. (Unless you stretch your definition of black hole by a very long way.)

But his explanation of why the night sky is black really beggars belief. Surely the night sky is black because the observable universe isn't infinite, and the sources of light are much smaller than the spaces between them? I don't think that is a difficult or controversial idea – why start pretending it's because we're in a black hole? [4]

Again, even after seven years, he's still saying the same thing. [Sorry – that video also seems to have been removed since I provided this link.]


c. Peer review

Skip to 5:00 and he tells us he's just about to publish his ideas and they're being very well-received by scientists. Of course, it never happened. [5] This is another story we hear again and again in his presentations – he's always so sure, it's always just around the corner. Why does he string people along like this?

I guess he believes it, and wants us to believe it too.
(That's the most charitable way of seeing it.)


d. Atoms as mini white wholes / black holes

Skip to 7:30 in the same video. "Some of the largest, most comprehensive unification theories that are trying to be worked out now – and are incorrect because they're missing the fractal component – by Stephen Hawking, for instance, describe all subatomic particles as mini black holes. And the Hadron Collider that's being built in Geneva that I mentioned earlier is being built to search for these mini white whole/black holes for subatomic particles."

Haramein once again takes the opportunity to make his claim that mainstream physics is lagging far behind his 'unification theories' (which have 'the fractal component').

Is Stephen Hawking working on unification theories in which all subatomic particles are mini-black holes? Has he ever? No. At least, I haven't seen any – let me know if you have. [6]

Was the Hadron Collider built to look for Haramein's black hole particles, or anything remotely like them? No, of course it wasn't.

There will be searches for tiny black holes because some theories predict that if there are several extra dimensions of space, and if these dimensions are not too small, then black holes should appear in the collider experiments – and immediately evaporate, leaving a particular decay signature. These theories are absolutely nothing like Haramein's. The only similarity is that they both use the term "black hole" – they don't even mean the same thing when they use it.

Can he fit any more misinformation into one ten-minute chunk of a presentation?

Here's some more:


e. Biological cells are black holes too

At 8:40 in the video, Haramein explains that proteins in cell membranes oscillate at 10^11 Hertz, and that if you use that to plot a cell on his Scaling Law graph it falls close to the line he plotted for black holes.

He seems to be trying to suggest that somehow this means a cell must be a black hole.

At 10:25, he says, "The cell biology - the biological resolution of a cell - actually obeys the Schwarzschild Condition of a black hole, because it generates so much energy. 10^11 is a huge number."

First of all, let's be clear, a frequency of 10^11 Hertz isn't huge – it's tiny. A single photon of light – the tiniest amount of light that it's possible to have – has a frequency of over a thousand times more than this. And a single photon of light doesn't generate a lot of energy. But that's an aside.


What does Haramein mean by 'the Schwarzschild Condition'? [7] The most obvious thing he could mean given the context is the condition of something being compressed so thoroughly that the whole of it lies within its Schwarzschild radius, making a black hole. But this formula tells us very clearly that to make a black hole the size of a cell, you'd need to compress more than a million million million tonnes into it.

That's very clearly not what biological cells are like.

It's difficult to get a sense of what he actually means when he says black hole. In his papers, he frequently uses the formulae from Einstein's General Relativity (the origin of all our concepts of black holes, and Schwarzschild's formula), which show unambiguously that every black hole has an event horizon beyond which nothing can be seen.

In fact that's what event horizon means.

Haramein uses the term event horizon all over the place. He uses it to mean the membrane of a cell at 8:55 in this video. Which makes no sense, because we can see inside a cell. [8]

So come on, why on Earth would anyone say something so ridiculous as biological cells are black holes? Whether or not you agree with or understand any of the physics involved, what he's saying just makes no sense.

In fact he doesn't stop there. In this video in the same series, we can see him explaining that a woman's vagina is an event horizon! [9]

I think this makes it clear that here is a man who really does not know what he's talking about, but is nevertheless prepared to play the role of the expert. Are these acceptable qualities for someone you should wish to follow?


3. Other examples of basic misunderstandings

There are so many videos of Haramein now on the internet, I could give example after example after example of him misunderstanding, misquoting and misrepresenting very basic scientific ideas.

a. Quantum mechanics and the strong nuclear force

In video 16 in the same series, he explains his understanding of quantum mechanics (getting it completely wrong in the process) before dismissing it as 'bunk'. He goes on to explain why the strong nuclear force was simply invented from thin air, and why he's sure there's really no need for it. [10]

I hope to do a separate post about this at some point. I'll put a link here when I've done it. Because this little bundle of schoolboy errors is the basis of his attempt to unify gravity with the strong force, which has been reported by some sources on the internet as if it's cutting-edge research. It's not.

I'll explain why I'm saying this at another time. In the meantime, don't take my word for it – check it out yourself. Investigate.


b. The phi spiral

I gave another example in my post here (number 3 on that page) that shows him being clueless with basic mathematics. I know this wasn't 'published material' – just a casual situation – but you can see how he gets his ideas.

In the video, all that happens is that he spots something on a graph that looks like somethings else. Does he...

(a) investigate it further?
(b) calculate it?
(c) announce that his 'discovery' relates to interference resonances and has profound implications for Einstein's field equations and matter spiralling into a black hole and that it links his theories to the 'Mathematical Fingerprint of God'?

Of course he goes for (c). Just a little pre-university mathematics would have shown that the whole thing was a complete mistake. The 'resonances' were another mistake; the black hole ideas were also wrong; and the other stuff was... I don't even have a word for it. (The mistakes are all explained here.)

True, anyone can make a mistake or four.

But what kind of person would jump straight to (c) and ignore the others? Seriously?



4. The Resonance Project website

Haramein's website is full of claims that do seem a little over-the-top, given what we've seen about him, and illustrate how readily he resorts to hype and hyperbole.


a. More claims for himself and his work
Of him, it says "As early as 9 years old, Nassim was already developing the basis for a unified hyperdimensional theory of matter and energy, which he eventually called the 'Holofractographic Universe.' " [11] He's keen to paint himself as a genius from an early age.

He claims his Schwarzschild Proton paper was "chosen by a panel of 11 peer reviewers, Haramein's paper won the prestigious 'Best Paper Award'." I've explained here why his use of 'peer review' is misleading, and the term 'prestigious' is something of an overstatement.

He claims that "this simple paper is already producing remarkable results!" and "This radical new view of the quantum world produces a unification of the forces and appropriately predicts measured values for the nucleon of atoms." I've explained here why these are absolutely untrue.

The Schwarzschild Proton paper also "lays down the foundation of what could be a fundamental change in our current understandings of physics and consciousness." (I'll leave that one to you to figure out.)

His Scaling Law paper "leads to theoretical and technological advancements that move us towards a sustainable future. This new approach to the physics of universal forces has the potential to solve the most pressing issues of our times." Is any explanation or justification given for such grand, save-the-world statements? No. (But see note [2], I guess.)


He claims that "scientists at the Resonance Project Foundation have found a new solution to Einstein’s field equations" – this is also untrue. They changed Einstein's equations in an attempt to fit what they wanted into them. [12]

And so it goes on.


b. 'Layman Paper' on the Origin of Spin

From the research section of his website, you can download a 'Layman Paper' on the origin of spin [Edit, May'13: the links to Haramein's website in this section are now links to archived material, as virtually all of the previous information on his activities has now been removed from his website]. In this paper, Haramein announces that he was way ahead of Stephen Hawking in his ideas on black holes, and he got there by using "pure logic" and geometric extrapolations from Hebraic and Egyptian texts. He takes the opportunity to compare himself to Isaac Newton! And, with characteristic humility, he explains that he's named his "landmark" amendment to Einstein's equations after... himself.


However, the very first sentence of the paper is false. This is a problem, because this sentence encapsulates the idea that motivates all Haramein's ideas about spin, torsion, Coriolis effects, vortices... the works. It's wrong because

(a) the Universe would evolve into spinning systems even if there is no spin to begin with – there are good reasons why it would be impossible for spin not to arise [13]. And

(b) the idea that spin (or angular momentum) would run down if there is friction within a system is also false. He illustrates this with an example of a spinning egg, which can easily be shown to be flawed – you can even demonstrate yourself with a simple experiment. [14]

Under Haramein's biography on his site, there is a link to a radio interview in which you can hear him present his own ideas. He starts with the nonsense about spin that I mentioned above, and within 3 minutes he's diverged so far from reality that he's telling us that "if a planet suddenly stopped spinning it would explode." Which is so sweet I couldn't resist featuring it at the top of this article.


c. Science

One other little quote from his website that I liked: in the advert for his DVD, he asks "Have you ever wondered why those science classes were at all important?"

xkcd's illustration of the original big bang theory predictions of the
cosmic microwave background (curve) and later observations from COBE (dots).
The theory was correct to a spectacular degree of accuracy.

Hopefully they were important because they encouraged us to explore, to question, to find out for ourselves. Not to take Haramein's word for anything, or my word for anything, or anyone else's word for anything, but to seek out convincing ideas and build up our own sound but flexible interpretation of the physical reality of the wonder-filled universe we find ourselves in. One that reflects reality, as truly as we can.

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.



5. A little thought

Haramein's physics world may appear solid, especially when you're in it... but it can all be evaporated by nothing more than a little thought. And once you're spared his fake sense of intuitive obviousness, you can get back to actually searching for the truth yourself. Which is a heck of an adventure.

An unfolding, enriching, genuine quest that can last a lifetime.


_____________________________________________________

Notes

[1] I've heard some of his latest suggestions as to how this 885 million tonnes can be explained away using relativity... I'll wait until he publishes them before I say what I think. [Edit: here they are. They're pretty absurd.] (return)

[2] In this video he's speaking at a "free energy" conference, so he's addressing an audience who believe or want to believe (in contrast to all reputable scientific opinion) that we can magically harvest limitless amounts of energy from a vacuum and save the world using impressive-sounding quantum wizardry. And where anyone who says otherwise is closed-minded and can't think outside the box and is part of the mainstream conspiracy to kill other people's creativity.

I mention it in this way because that last sentence may well contain defences that you have heard before. If you ever find yourself with legitimate reasons for questioning a set of ideas and the people defending it have no answers, they will often use these defences. If you think about each of them, you can see that they say nothing at all about the ideas being questioned, which means they're as easy to use for someone who is talking complete nonsense as they are for anyone else. They divert attention away from a complete lack of evidence or reason behind an idea, and onto the obviously wonderful emperor's clothes, without any clothes actually needing to be there.

In the case of "free energy", there is no evidence; and I have seen no reasons put forward for it that aren't fatally flawed from the outset. There are of course many reasons why many people would want it to be true (and for some people, if they want something and someone tells them it's possible, that's all it takes for blind faith to set in). It's wide open for charismatic and unscrupulous people to gain fame, followers and fortune by tapping into this. But there are some very powerful reasons as to why energy cannot be extracted from the vacuum, reasons which I would think virtually all physicists who deal with the quantum physics of the vacuum would agree on.

The most compelling argument is that the very same theory (quantum field theory or QFT) that predicts vacuum energy also predicts very clearly that it cannot be removed. It is only postulated to be there at all because it's an absolute minimum energy that a vacuum must have. So either you agree with QFT, or you don't – either way it's not available. The only way you could think it was available is by grossly misreading the theory.

Note that Haramein, and Stephen Greer, and other free energy advocates don't understand QFT. They either state explicitly that they don't (e.g. Greer), or dismiss quantum mechanics entirely (e.g. Haramein), or try to use it or to talk about it and in the process make it very clear that they're clueless (e.g. Haramein trying to explain renormalisation). Or a combination of the three.

People are free of course to research what they will, because one never knows. But that doesn't make it ok for these people to hold massive events in which they promise the world to happily-paying members of the public, when in fact they have nothing at all to give. Telling people there's no need to worry about the energy/climate crisis because soon they're going to make it appear out of nowhere is not going to help the real change that we need one bit. (return)

[3] If that doesn't make a convincing enough argument for you, the real reasons can be found in the beautiful theory of general relativity, which has so far stood up to every single experimental and observational test that a century of science has thought of to throw at it. I'd encourage anyone who's interested in the nature of space-time to study it. (return)

[4] Although if you want to explore further, it can get interesting. Haramein may be confusing an event horizon of a black hole with the cosmological event horizon. The latter is the furthest distance from which light could ever reach us in an accelerating universe. For the vast majority of the life of the universe, the cosmological event horizon is way beyond the current cosmological horizon that marks the limit of the observable universe. The two types of event horizons are very different.

Anyway, hang on, didn't he just say that all the light from the Earth (which is well-lit by the Sun) goes around a few stars and comes back to where it came from? If that's what it's like in Haramein's black hole universe, wouldn't that make the sky light again? (return)

[5] The paper he was referring to (Scale Unification – A Universal Scaling Law For Organized Matter) exists only as a preprint for conference proceedings. Conference proceedings are a collection of all papers presented at a conference. Preprints are the versions issued privately (e.g. to the conference-goers) before being published.

(How many of Haramein's papers have been published in a peer-review journal? Is the only possible reason for this the supposed fact that the peer-review process is corrupt? Discuss.) (return)

[6] Hawking did discover the theoretical necessity for black holes to evaporate by emitting thermal radiation. What I mean by that is that unless they do, several fundamental physical laws must be violated – in ways that we'd really expect to have seen elsewhere. Hawking's work implies that any black hole with a mass below 228 tonnes would vanish in a flash of high energy radiation in less than one second. (What would this mean for Haramein's black holes?) (return)

[7] There is no "Condition" normally named after Karl Schwarzschild – if there was, it should probably be the pemphigus that killed him. There's a Schwarzschild Criterion, but that has nothing to do with black holes either – it's about plasma flow within a star. (return)

[8] The same argument applies to anything else that he describes as a black hole – for example a proton. Hundreds of accelerators throughout the world have been used to see very clearly the internal structure of a proton. It's not an event horizon if information is reaching us from inside. (return)

[9] Scientists have seen inside those, too. (return)

[10] The things he says about quantum mechanics and the strong nuclear force in this video are remarkable. He takes no notice of the fact that people have been investigating the nucleus for a hundred years and actually finding out what it's like. Instead he makes something up based on misunderstandings of the kind of facts you find in school textbooks. And this is what's led him to produce his paper on the Schwarzschild Proton; even as we speak he's still trying to force it to work. Good luck to him. (As I said, I hope to find some time to explain why I think this in another post.) (return)

[11] This is because he had a vision on a school bus, which he describes here. No doubt a powerful one – powerful enough that he's clung onto it and spent decades trying to force physics to fit it instead of using physics honestly to find out what physical reality is actually like. (return)

[12] See the paper here. It's not recommended bed-time reading. At the top of page 157 it's announced that Einstein's equations will have to be altered. On page 161 the electromagnetic field has to be altered too. (return)

[13] I won't try to explain it fully here. Briefly, when a gas cloud condenses to form a galaxy, if anything has motion that is not directed precisely towards the centre then that would give rise to angular momentum. The overall rate of spin naturally increases as an object becomes more compact. Total angular momentum should be conserved: for every unit of spin in galaxies turning clockwise about any axis, there should be a unit of spin in galaxies turning anticlockwise about the same axis. The total angular momentum in the Universe can still balance out to zero.

Interestingly, there's a theorem that states that in a friction-free system, spin couldn't arise. Friction is really the key to how different parts of the Universe acquire spin – not, as Haramein would have us believe, a reason for why it shouldn't be there. (return)

[14] If you spin an egg on a table, to use Haramein's example, it only slows down because its spin is passed to the Earth. If the egg was on a table in space, the spin of the egg would slow and the table would start to spin. Friction within the system doesn't reduce the overall spin of the system. Friction merely passes spin from one part of the system to another.

So why does a raw egg slow down so much faster when you spin it? Because when you spin a raw egg using your fingers, you only set the shell and the outer part of the albumen spinning! The non-spinning core of the egg quickly slows it down. What would happen if you could set the whole egg spinning? To test it, attach an egg to the centre of a plate, set that plate spinning constantly for a minute or so, and then detatch the spinning egg onto a table. Time how long the egg spins for on the table, and you'll find that it makes no difference whether it's raw or boiled. The friction or viscosity within the egg doesn't slow it down at all.

There's no reason for the spin of the Earth or a galaxy or a star or the Universe to be slowed by the effects of internal viscosity or friction. In fact, angular momentum is an absolutely conserved quantity in every single reliable theory of physics. (return)

432 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 432   Newer›   Newest»
Skepticlos said...

I don't think it's about Haramein. I think it is more about fractals. Everything in nature, best I can tell is fractal in nature as well.

Geometry must be the means of measuring the universe. It ain't euclidean in the cosmos, it's non-euclidean. So if it is non-euclidean way out their, then it must be non-euclidean way in their.

So for what it is worth, others whom have thought of fractals.

Felix Hausdorff - Hausdorff dimension

Benoît B. Mandelbrot - Mandelbrot set

Itzhak Bentov - probably mildly known, just someone I found with similar thoughts

Arthur C. Clarke - writer, so we can't trust him

Buckminster Fuller - far ahead of his time and probably still is

Robert Williams - Catenatic Geometry, I am sure nobody cares about this guy, but his work makes sense, especially interms of the geometric fractal universe thingamajig.

Antony Garrett Lisi - has a possible model far the tiniest of structures

All of those dudes have work that could be viewed together I believe to have a better understanding of a fractal universe. Haramein just turns it into a fun sci-fi(nonfi) ride

Stuff I don't like about quantum physics...

measurement problem
fine-structure constant
cosmological constant

the stuff they use but don't explain

I also believe string theory can be better understood... perhaps.

Bob said...

It? I'm not sure how you can read that post and say "it" is not about Haramein.

Fractals are another thing that Haramein has some very confused ideas about - maybe one day I'll do a post on them too.

Yes, fractals appear in nature in lots of particular situations - but only in dynamical systems that share particular characteristics.
And yes, some people have thought of them.
And yes, fractals are cool and look kinda cosmic.
But that doesn't mean everything is a fractal. That's like saying spheres are great, there are spheres out in space and deep within atoms, therefore maybe deep down in some sense everything is a sphere. It's nonsense. Sorry.

Re quantum physics - remember, the only way we have of getting to the nature of the Universe, rather than our own fantasy version of it, is to go for theories that work, that reflect reality, that explain and predict accurately, and follow them, whether we like them or not. There are bound to be things that still don't make sense when we've done the best we can - we have to live with them until we find a genuine way to get closer to the truth.

It's tempting to just make something up that we like at that point, or go for some idea that takes our fancy despite not having any real reason to believe it's true. The only HONEST path is to always be clear about what the limits of our knowledge, and let whatever is unknown be unknown.

Skepticlos said...

Hi Bob,

If you give me a thing or an it, I will try to give you the fractal...

try ten things or its.

I am not a true student of physics but have enough understanding, that it would be possible to use many theories we have to day, but change the formula's so that they incorporated the fractal nature of it all.

Bob said...

I get it.
You're not a student of physics, but...

There really isn't a "fractal nature of it all". There are some systems that generate patterns that approximate to fractals within certain ranges of scale.

Trees approximate to fractal behaviour from tens of metres down to centimetres. Outside that range, they're not fractal. Everything that appears to be fractal only displays those properties within a particular scale range.

If you ignore the limits of applicability of models, you're in la la land.

T.Rue (3seas) said...

This is like the opposite and equal reaction to Nassim's force. Perhaps you are really friends and perceive conflict as a way to avoid the void in promoting his views. Even god is a sinner against the void. A survival technique.

In the 2003 video mentioned he goes into things like the Exodus and some connection to the Arc of the Covenant. But its clear the sequence of events was nothing more than the result of volcanic activity, Even the reason the Egyptians renigged on their part of the brick making agreement. Simply put, volcanic activity was causing less grass to grow. red clay released from the volcanic activity took oxygen out of the water, things died and rotted and frogs left the water, bugs came, first born died due sleeping quarters or sleeping level and gasses, carbon monoxide? from the volcano. Sea parting due lave and water mix to old faithful (yellowstone) type of timed ficher guysher and. Moses saw teh timing and backtracked to use it. Follow a column of smoke during teh day and flame of fire by night and fish meal from eth sky - cooked fish from volcanic gysers from sea water...

However, MIT did once have a project to re-create the Arc of the Covenant but had to cancel the project due to the dangerious level of static electric it began to generate.

Further more I have been trying to better understand how it is that my thoughts seem to manifest into reality certainly more often than coincidence allows. Nassim views are helpful,

I have also identified Abstraction Physics. Yes there are actual action constants that you cannot avoid the use of in creating and using Abstractions. Be it for deception, fantasy, entertainment, honesty or misinterpretation, these action constants apply. I suppose thats a unified field in all this communication.

There was a time when it was said, how can nothing have value, only a fool would think that. Roman Numeral accountants protecting their position in society defending against the decimal system with its zero place holder power that enabled more to do more with math than teh elite.

http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage

&

http://abstract-beliefs.blogspot.com/

Bob said...

Welcome, T.Rue

Gotta love the arrogance of someone who believes they can psychoanalyse you from another continent. I wondered when that would start. Must be irresistible to some.

As for the rest, I haven't a clue what you're talking about. But I'm sure you're a decent guy, so thanks.

T.Rue (3seas) said...

Spin, its recognized and used in publicity and often contains such contrasting material as to generate interest and participation, even if only among members of the audience.Publicity, good or bad is better than none in teh world of show biz. And it really is called "Spin". Perhaps this is the cause of the "Spin" Nassim refers to?

Psychoanalyze? I'm not sure what you are referring to but based on experience I feel rather safe to assume you are claiming this is what I have done to you above. It is not uncommon for others to react to me in such a manner as to accuse me of something and in the very process of doing so they themselves prove it of themselves.

Further evidence of this is that you claim you don't know what I'm writing about other than this erroneous perception of you being psychoanalyzed by I.

Perhaps it was my fault as I didn't make it clear which MIT attempted to re-create the Arc of the Covenant, I said MIT but I remember now it was not Massachusetts Institute of Technology but Maryland Institute of Technology.

Or perhaps it is my identification of the the gears and bearings of abstraction creation and use that triggers off this reflection claim..... I have to consider the possibility that it has to do with the difficulty others may have to recognize and/or admit their own use of the action constants of abstraction physics.

And my presenting such information is like holding a mirror up for another to see themselves? But its the mirror I'm showing them, not the reflection of themselves.

So Bob, how can I show you the mirror if all you can see is a reflection of yourself? Or perhaps you'd just like to hide the mirror, but from who? Me? Yourself? others? And if so, why?

Spin?

We are human and we make errors, even Nassim does, but this doesn't mean you scrap everything when an error is exposed and start over. Instead you understand the error and make the corrections.

The internet is a place where it is easy to feel like you can put yourself on a pedestal by knocking others down.
But those who do this are still standing on ground that is sinking as they will continue to put others down to maintain such a feeling.

For me to be doing such would be contrary to my efforts to communicate about abstraction physics.

Bob, what do you really want to do here?
Advance our understanding of Physics or put yourself on an imaginary but sinking pedestal?

Bob said...

You said "Perhaps you are really friends and perceive conflict as a way to avoid the void in promoting his views" You also suggested my criticism of Haramein was "a survival technique." Now you say to me that "all you can see is a reflection of yourself." Who are you to tell someone you've never met what is going on inside their mind? It's presumptuous and arrogant, it's almost guaranteed to be wrong, and it's really not a great way to make a point.

Nassim doesn't 'make errors', he talks garbage and pretends to be an expert. I'm talking about physics. Not the Arc of the Covenant, and not Abstraction Physics. This is a post on Haramein trying to use black hole physics, astrophysics and particle physics to pretend to be something that he's not.

As I said, I'm not interested in knocking others down. But if someone talks garbage about a subject they know nothing about and makes blatantly false claims about themselves and their work, then I think it's right that someone should say so.

You seem to be merely arguing for the sake of arguing. If there's anything specific that I've said that you have reason to believe is incorrect, please say what it is and explain why I've got it wrong.

T.Rue (3seas) said...

Perhaps you should add something to your blogspot profile that indicates you have some background in physics.

Or perhaps not.

....shrug....

Bob said...

You'd be more convinced by an argument from authority? I chose to use reason. Personal preference.

T.Rue (3seas) said...

Bob, you assuming I was looking for evidence of authority?

A roman numeral accountant, who has a respected position in society and a nice lifestyle due how difficult but needed was his position in society was, reasoned that only a fool would think "Nothing" can have value.

And that certainly sounded logical. So it took three hundred years for teh Hindu-Arabic decimal system with its "nothing value" of the zero place holder
to over come the limitations of the roman numeral math.

Was he protecting his position or was the "nothing" value simply not in his vocabulary of comprehension? Certainly the accountant could have learned and used the easier math of the Decimal system with its "nothing" place holder. Proving its value to himself.

Perhaps his "reasoning" was to protect his vested interest.

Do you have personal vested interest in the field of physics that Nassim's work challenges?

In any event, the more that you can show of your overall knowledge and background of a topic, the better you will be considered for your views, right or wrong.

But if sparse information is what you want to provide, then remember, people remember longer what a critic says than who the critic is. And neither may be very long in comparison to someone who does what critics criticize.

Nissam may be totally wrong, but his works will be remembered far longer than your critique and claims against him. If for any reason due to the amount of effort and production he has put into it.

Certainly you realize this Bob.

The best way to expose him is to out do him in works and production of the communication of your works.

So Bob, what are your works? Where is your passion? We can see where Nissam's passion is. Your's seem to be of attack of Nissam rather than overcome him with your works.

What is reason? A string of better sounding abstractions?

Denial is mans most powerful tool.
Ignorance is a weapon and excuse for denial.

Again Nissam may be totally wrong and misleading. He might just have a better sounding and longer string of abstractions and means of communicaing it further.

Perhaps all that really matter in honesty is correctly calling such "theory". As in unified field "theory".

Bob said...

I'm sorry you think I've provided 'sparse information'. And I disagree if you think any of this is about me.

You can attack what I'm saying all you like by questioning my motivations, by questioning my 'passion', by questioning my credentials, by calling me all sorts of things, I really couldn't give a crap. As I said, I've presented the facts - if anything I've said is incorrect, explain why. If not, get over it.

Skepticlos said...

well once you get into the plant cell magic within the cells rather than the actual look of the tree, they are made of of cells made up of molecules made up of smaller shits until finally you get protons.

In this theory of a fractal universe, their structures would be fractal in nature. All the way down into the protons and electrons, all the way past them and into the tiniest things we some day may be able to measure, and then past that, to the tiniest little cosmically small little shit and guess what it just gets smaller.

Just because I did not go to school for physics, doesn't prevent me from having interest and researching on my own. I do believe in everything I have seen their is a fractal nature to it.

So if it were true that the Cosmos was based on fractals, wouldn't we show more consideration to Haramein and others who have suggested the same. Haramein may be a charlatan, but consider a fractal universe, give me ten things of whatever, and I believe I can show you the fractal in nature.

I really have no idea about the Schwarzschild Proton. I believe I can picture the idea of it having the mass of the universe.

The Universe was a wound up vortex that released and spread out into cluster galaxy which broke out like gears spinning amongst each other. The deeper you go into the singularity the faster these things spin (cluster galaxies, galaxies, solar systems, planets, moons. All spinning at a faster rate to scale amongst it's vortex.

Now imagine getting to as small as a proton. Holy crapola, that is insanely fast, there is a lot of gravity there, enough energy to contain the mass of the universe? I don't know, but if we are getting into holographic universes if their are at least 4D. Then maybe yeah, that could make sense.

If the Universe is inside a Black Hole and it keeps going down the rabbit hole then I could understand how everything would ultimately be in everything because everything is a black hole vortex.. blah getting too long

Bob said...

Skepticlos, of course you can be interested in physics without having studied it thoroughly. But I'd suggest that if you want to learn more, you go and find out things, rather than just telling people (including physicists) how it all really is.

I don't know if you're lucky enough to be fluent in another language. Let's imagine that you are. I'm not. But imagine that I'm really interested in your language, and I've learnt a couple of poems and looked some phrases up on the internet, but I've never properly studied the whole language, and I've never had to speak it in its native country.

If I then came up to you and started telling you my ideas about your language, and insisting they were true, I'd look a fool, don't you think?

You're saying a whole lot of things that are wrong. All I can do is say look, my friend, a lot of what you're saying is wrong.

I could try to explain them all, and why I think the reasons for them are convincing. For now I'll just list them, and it's your choice whether or not to take my word.

1. a tree is not fractal just because you can divide it into bits. If it were fractal, its structure would in some sense be independent of scale. Inside each twig would be entire tree-like structures. A tree, as I said, approximates to a fractal form within a certain scale range. That's all.

2. protons are made of quarks, and quarks aren't made of anything smaller. Electrons aren't made of anything smaller. Or if they are, it's SO small that there's still a huge gap in scale where nothing happens. A big scale gap. No particles. No trees in there. No clouds or mandelbrot sets or mini black holes, just a gap.

3. I don't (and I'm sure the Universe doesn't) care what you can picture the Universe being made of. If you don't bother to test your ideas against reality, if you don't do the work to try to convince yourself that they're NOT true, and no matter how hard you try you can't shake them off... then they're not theories. Until you've convinced yourself using evidence and reason that they HAVE to have some truth about them, they're just ideas, stories, little pictures that you like.

You seem to have cobbled together your own fantasy image of the Universe from other people's stories and your own imagination and selecting the bits that you like. The Universe doesn't operate according to your taste in imagery. You'd get a much better picture if you go and see what the thousands of people who devote their lives to this stuff have actually observed, what they've deduced, measured, proved. Maybe even look at how they did it and what makes them so sure, where the limits of their understanding is, and why. That's got to be better than making it up. No?

If not, then fair enough, but please at least be honest and admit when you don't know what you're talking about.

Skepticlos said...

Holy Moly!

I'll suppose I'll stop, in this discussion I think. Just one last post I suppose though, as you seem like you would like me to stop.

1. or would you prefer DNA. The whole DNA thing...ok, this is taken from wikipedia

"An analogy to the human genome stored on DNA is that of instructions stored in a library:
The library would contain 46 books (chromosomes)
The books range in size from 400 to 3340 pages (genes)
which is 48 to 250 million letters (A,C,G,T) per book.
Hence the library contains over six billion letters total;
The library fits into a cell nucleus the size of a pinpoint;
A copy of the library (all 46 books) is contained in almost every cell of our body."

every cell of our body!

this just gets even more into the fractalization of biology. It even does it by the number of eyes, ears, toes, fingers, legs, arms, to the swirl of the hair on your head...

questionning if a fractal Universe (F-universe) exists then you haven't really gotten me there.



2. A Gap. Before the Big-Bang was the Big Gap. I love it.

I don't think we have seen a quark yet, but they probably exist. At some point we can't measure so small, it makes sense. To think the quark was almighty smallest thing is pretty silly. It doesn't figure it out.

3. This with the rest was the rudest, but I suppose it is the internet and these things happen. So I will leave your site. Keep slamming Haramein though, someone has to. I was looking for a dissenting opinion and found your site. I recently watched his videos and found it easy to think his way, and that it would be easy to adapt to our Theories but incorporating the infinite and finite of a spinning fractal. Everything we do in science gets closer, we aren't there yet. It's just an idea.

so if you've been counting, that's protons and trees that have been brought up, both fractal in form. So that is eigth things left,

Bob said...

Ok, apologies for being a bit harsh. I'm serious, though - you should try to actually learn something instead of preaching things you don't understand.

DNA is copied in every cell, but it doesn't mean it's a fractal. Why not find out what a fractal is, instead of making it up? Having two arms doesn't make a fractal, and having a swirl on your head doesn't make a fractal. I just don't get why anyone would want to just use the word to mean whatever they choose, instead of learning what one is.

It's like having someone try to convince you that you're a hippopotamus.

Anonymous said...

Well ok then, your a hippopotamus.

A very skeptical hippopotamus with too much free time on our hands obviously. I been searching your critique for any "real" evidence that proves Haramein is wrong and after reading endless reasons why it is probably wrong I no time for this so I'll look elsewhere for something with substance. Just saying he is wrong is not a real argument. Obviously if you had a theory of your own you could put all this wasted energy to use and post your own ideas instead of working so hard to bash others.

I see a world of problems and a vast shortage of new ideas to counter balance them. Anyone brave enough to put their ideas upon the world table can only help in the search for solutions. Skepticism...
(another word for intellectual cowardliness) brings nothing new to the table. New ideas come from brave and imaginative minds.


What has Bob the hippopotamus brought to the table lately?

Bob said...

Sure, what we need is lots more people claiming to have found a unified field theory, and less and less people capable of distinguishing truth from fantasy. So I keep hearing.

Mostly from people who use words like 'obviously' to refer to the contents of their imagination.

Sounds great, mate.

wendy said...

Hi Bob,

I'm just writing to thank you for the hard-work you've put in by working through and critiquing Haramein's claims, and then also answering the various comments that have been posted here.

I know it typically takes a lot more work to patiently and calmly discuss and explain something than simply to spout generalised glib nonsense, or throw around various accusations, and I think you have showed remarkable patience here!

I'm with you on the ' I just don't get why anyone would want to just use the word to mean whatever they choose, instead of learning what one is.'.

This seems to happen an awful lot around words like fractal, holographic, energy, force, quantum etc etc.

Anyway, I won't ramble on, just writing to say 'thanks', and you had me laughing out loud with
"It's like having someone try to convince you that you're a hippopotamus" :)

Bob said...

Thanks Wendy!

And great to find someone else who likes "Hyperbole and a Half" - now there's a real piece of blogging genius. I think she's fabulous.

Skepticlos said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Odtor8VIwM&feature=related

similar to Nassim

wendy said...

[Part 1 of 2]

I can see why they could look similar on a casual inspection, but if you look more deeply you'll see that Lisi is quite different to Haramein.

Firstly, the actual specific ideas Lisi is working on (E8 Lie group as representation for all possible fundamental particles) are very different to Haramein's (Schwartzchild proton etc).

So, one important way in which they differe is that they are not ideas about the same things - Haramein's is, if it is about anything at all, about one particular kind of particle - the proton - and also about black holes, and finally fractal geometry.

Lisi's work is about some underlying mathematical symmetries which can help to clarify and classify the entire 'zoo' of fundamental particles which we currently believe to exist.

But secondly, and far more importantly, Lisi's whole approach to the doing of theoretical physics research is utterly different to that taken by Haramein.

Lisi is in communication with a number of other scientists who are working in the same areas as he is.

His E8 theory generated a lot of interest and excitement amongst these others in the field, but also quite few healthy doses of scepticism.

So, what these means is that Lisi has communicated his ideas to a group of peers in such a way that they can understand what he is on about, and then make educated decisions about what to believe.

This is a group of people who are all 'on the same page' so to speak - who can understand enough of what each other is saying to evaluate it. They are all working, thinking, living, breathing these ideas.

If his E8 idea passes through enough of this kind of scrutiny and starts looking really solid, then the same group of people will be able to start coming up with ideas as to how to actually test the theory, and so on.(1)

Of course, like most new ideas in such complex areas, it will probably not pan out in the end.

Lisi has been the first to accept that his new theory, whilst beautiful, is quite likely wrong. (2)

But even if it does turn out to be wrong, what Lisi is doing is still good science. Why? Because it is part of a group process of figuring out how things work, and because this group process will, if it gets that far, lead to experimental tests. Every idea is checked and re-checked, from all sorts of points of view, and then when the theory makes enough sense to predict results, the only really reliable test of a scientific theory is made, that is, an experiment (or set of experiments)

wendy said...

[Part 2 of 2]

Haramein, on the other hand, is doing bad science. Even if by some bizarre off-chance he turns out to be right.

He is doing bad science because he has no peer group to constructively critique his work, and because his ideas are unclear and do not even really make sense in terms of the current state of knowledge.

Of course he *could* still be correct, and just so far 'beyond' the current state of knowledge that no-one can understand him. However even of this were somehow the case, it would be up to him to figure out how to communicate his new ideas, and in order to do this he would have to come to a proper understanding of the existing ideas first, even if only so that he could debunk them.

In the past, great scientists who made visionary leaps have had to do this - Newton and Einstein both come to mind.

It is very hard work, but if you really think you have a good idea that no-one else understands, then that is just what you have to do, even if you don't like it. Just pointing and saying other people don't understand, will get you nowhere fast.

Newton actually took a lot longer than he had to when he was writing the Principia (his main work, in which he outlines the three laws of classical mechanics and also the functional form for the force of gravity).

Some scholars have suggested that the reason he took a lot longer than strictly necessary is that, although he had used calculus to get his results, he also knew that these techniques were unknown to most scientists of the day, so he re-derived everything using older mathematical techniques at least partly in order that he could be absolutely sure of being understood. (3)


And, again unlike Haramein but like Lisi, during this time, while he was rewriting it, he was still in touch with other scientists of the day - he didn't form a sort of small closed community of believers around him, which is what Haramein seems to have done.

So, to finally get to my main point, as long as Haramein continues working essentially alone, and not really trying to communicate with the existing scientific community, then imo what he is doing is not good science.

This is the case even if he is somehow 'right' about some things.

On the other hand, Lisi, even if he is wrong (which he probably is), is still doing good science.

Note that I'm *not* talking about some kind of 'truth by majority vote' here, but simply about the process of critique and refinement that comes about when you have many minds working on an idea. This process is very important in [good] science.





(1) Ok, so this little story is something of a simplification of what actually happens in the process of the creation of new science, especially in areas as esoteric and far from easy experimental testing as fundamental particle physics, but it will do for now.
The key idea I'm trying to express is that Lisi's work makes sense to others in the field - it may be wrong, but if it is wrong, they will eventually be able to figure out what is wrong with it and why.
In Haramein's case, no-one really in a position to judge knows what the H** he is talking about. If you actually read his stuff and take it at face value it simply doesn't make sense, scientifically or mathematically.
If, on the other hand, you decide to give him the benefit of the doubt, and you say 'maybe he's on to something, but he doesn't have the required training to express it clearly and in the current accepted terminology, perhaps even to himself.', then that's a different story, however its still true that the only thing for it is for him to *get* that training and then really work to *make* other scientists understand

(2)http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=garrett-lisi-e8-theory

(3)http://www.maa.org/reviews/readnewton.html

Anonymous said...

Just wanted to thank you, Bob, for taking so much time to respond to Haramein's presentations and papers. There is very little on the internet about him and it seems there once was a Wikipedia entry, but it was removed.

Of course the problem is that for most people, quantum physics (actually anything beyond Newtonian physics), is just way beyond their ability and interest. You get someone like Haramein who is saying what people want to hear, and they don't worry about the details (in this case, the actual evidence...)

Although you deal mostly with the science and math, I'd encourage any person who is skeptical about Haramein to scrutinize every statement he makes. I found that in even very general items (archeology, earth history, etc.) a great deal of what he said was factually wrong. This alone is enough to bother me when the speaker is making claims about truths being hidden from us, but cannot help but distort common knowledge.

Thanks for showing that this trend continues into the sciences and math, as I had no way to verify that.

Anonymous said...

So your thesis is this: the guy has only published a few papers, his concepts lead in different directions than the model he is trying to fix, and he is good at communicating to lay-people, therefore he is a fraud?

I started on your site reading a critique of the paper itself. That was useful, and might have lead somewhere, you know, constructive criticism. Then started with name calling and I think perhaps misunderstanding (eg the comments about cells as atoms clearly are derived more from the scaling law paper, not from the proton paper) yet you assume you've understood everything he says ... despite your own criticisms of his work as flawed ... you can't have it both ways. If his work is flawed, corrections must be sought before you can claim to have understood it. And to ciriticise his papers on the basis of his talks is poor. Lectures of such complexity rarely do not contain verbal slips, no matter who gives them.

But most of all, where are your published papers that we should trust you as an authority? Your argument is that this man is misleading people by claiming an authority he does not have. Yet your own credentials are nothing more than this blog? Give me a break! I would have better spent my own time critiquing the papers (honestly, constructively, and without prejudice), than critiquing your site. :p

Bob said...

Hi Anon.

No, of course that's not my thesis - it's nothing like it. And I haven't called him any names.

I'm saying his work is packed full of misunderstandings, many of his conclusions are demonstrably ridiculous, he nevertheless clings to his ideas and promotes them as facts, and he cultivates an image of himself as an expert. I've explained all of this in detail, with loads of examples.

I don't see that submitting "some corrections" would alter that.

In fact, rather than corrections, what he has offered are defences of his misunderstandings rather than corrections; and they are equally meaningless.

I didn't criticise his papers on the basis of his presentations, I criticised them from having read and analysed them, that's what all this is. You're right that I haven't yet explained everything that's wrong with his ludicrous scaling law paper. But wherever any of his comments about cells are derived from, if they're nonsense then they're nonsense, no?

Regarding credentials, I don't really believe that you're dumb enough to accept an argument from authority over an argument based on facts and reasoning - I think that's just a random swipe.

So please do let me know if you actually disagree with any single one of the dozens and dozens of Haramein's glaring scientific misunderstandings that I've outlined anywhere on my blog. If not, then I guess you feel it's fair enough that he should mess up the most basic of physics in every presentation he does and every paper he writes and still call himself a scientist?

People do go to a lot of lengths to defend this guy... but it would be so much more interesting if anyone could actually give any reasoning, rather than continually just trying to assert that I have no right to criticise him.

Anonymous said...

Woo-Woo wrote: "However, MIT did once have a project to re-create the Arc of the Covenant but had to cancel the project due to the dangerious level of static electric it began to generate."

Bob must be congratulated for his self-control. This is, after all, his blog. It's not my blog though, and I have no need to control myself; You're an imbecile T.Rue, but you're a hilarious imbecile...thanks for the laugh! Har! Those Arcs of the Covenant can really zap you if you're not wearing the protective papal insulating boots.

Bob said...

Yes, in fact that's how the Israelites discovered arc-welding.

They didn't really get to the Promised Land by walking across the river Jordan. They had submarines.

And small, steel-framed bicycles.

(It's all there in the excavations, but they won't tell you)

Marrs Coiro said...

Bob, I am initially quite disturbed at the lengths you have gone to try and disprove Haramein's work. But I do understand your concerns.
Why not constructively present your criticisms to Haramein himself to help him understand his communication difficulties and offer your assistance in refining his concept instead of exerting so much negativity trying to dismiss him.

Are you jealous that you didn't have the guts to go out on a limb and explore a different perspective on the Universe and our place in it?

If you understood Haramein you would see that first he had intuitively understood these concepts and is now trying to prove them with science. He’s bound to have a few difficulties along the way, but you have to see the beauty in what his presenting which is a larger concept of understanding of who we are and how we got here.

And isn't that how all scientific discoveries have came about?
First, the inspiration and then the proof. You don't just set up a lab and begin to analyse STUFF and hope to come to some cohesive conclusions. The intension is what counts and I truly believe that Haramein’s intensions are good and pure, even if we see his ego flare up every now and then.

Cut him some slack Bob.!
Why don’t you reveal your real name and your identity so you can be held accountable for you critics, research and words? That shows me that you’re intimidated by Nassim’s willingness to TRY and explain the unexplainable and putting his reputation on the line.

If you had any sense of dignity and compassion as a human being you would have taken your criticisms down a different path and they might have made a difference in the world. But your malice intension to cut another man down is cowardly and very unproductive.

It sounds like you do have a great wealth of knowledge that could be put to better use.

Good luck with the future...Bob.

Regards,

Marrs Coiro... (That’s my REAL name)

Anonymous said...

Marrs Coiro, Haramein's lectures are, for the most part, nonsense, and worse, he is selling DVDs on his website, and trying to present himself as an authority on physics, which he is clearly not. He deserves to have his nonsense exposed for what it is: Nonsense!

And judging from the apparent whackiness of some of his inexplicably devout followers, I don't blame Bob one bit for not wanting to use his real name.

Marrs Coiro said...

Anonymous... Haramein has never announced himself to be an authority on physics. He quite proudly boasts his self-educated history, and speaks about it quite openly.

Nassim has some great ideas and has completed some quite staggering research, which at least would make’s you contemplate the possibility of a greater purpose for your very existence and proposes a different reality to the restrictive collective reality we are currently accepting.

Let me ask you about your belief system Mr Anonymous. Do you follow a religion? Are you a man(woman) of science? in other words, what external conditioning factors in your life and upbringing, obstruct you from seeing any value at all in Nassim's work?

Nassim has been brave to put forward these radical theories and his bound to attract criticism. But I don't understand why people like yourself and Bob have to be so negatively discrediting without offering any direct constructive criticism to the man himself, human to human.

We humans are all in this together, trying to work out; what we are, where we come from and where we going and if we continue to ridicule each other instead of showing some reserved humility to guide each other in a more positive direction, then collectively we are not going to get anywhere.

You clearly see something special in his work if you feel the need to spend so much time attempting to discredit it all.

Maybe your time would be better spent on a SUDOKU puzzle.

Regards.

Anonymous said...

I have better ways to waste my time than to engage in a pseudo-debate with someone who makes substanceless replies like the one above.

The guy's a nut who does claim to be an authority in physics (as evidenced by his grandiose touting of that alleged "best paper award", as though it actually means anything), and he sells a DVD on his webpage, which means he is trying to profit from gullible imbeciles who take comfort in the delusion that somehow mankind has a special place in the universe...and yeah, I'm an atheist who finds all religion/new-age crap to be ridiculous.

Now go ahead and make another idiotic reply in defense of this nut-case and get the last word in, coz you're right, even a soduku puzzle would be time better spent than trying to have an intelligent exchange with the likes of you.

Go stand in a crop circle and wait for the mother-ship or something.

Buh-bye!

Marrs Coiro said...

Hahahaha.... Thanks for that reply anonymous.. It really made my morning...

Thanks for making me relies that it is truely pointless for me or anyone for that matter to spend any time on this blog trying to rationilise with people like you.

Im not sure if your mummy or pappa beat you when you were younger but you really should do something about that incredible anger and spite that you hold within yourself.

I'dd also like to thank Bob for creating this blog to keep all the narrow minded, player haters in the one space to free up the internet for others.

Good work Bob.

Don't bother replying, i won't be back here to check it out.....

I really do wish you all the best in resolving your personal problems... and your SUDOKU puzzles

Bob said...

Hello Marrs. If you're willing to cease the bickering, maybe we can have a conversation.

You might also try to focus on what's being talked about rather than pretending you can read my mind. Telling me that you understand my concerns and then blatantly misrepresenting them doesn't help. Neither does insinuating that I'm jealous, telling me what I "have to see," telling me that I'm intimidated, that I have no sense of dignity or compassion, and that my intentions are malicious and cowardly. Somewhere in amongst your fantasies you are trying to make a point.

You asked why not present my criticisms to Haramein in a respectful manner? Because I believe he's a fake. I believe he's misleading people, and I have far more respect for the truth than for people like that.

There are thousands of people who seem to believe that he is the new Einstein, or who believe him when tells them that his fantasy stories are backed by serious research, or who believe him when he tells them he's on the verge of a viable unified field theory. Some people seem very willing to believe whatever he says.

If he were a scientist, or any person sincerely seeking the truth and capable of discussing his work in a reasonable manner, of course I would discuss it with him. But I believe him to be a self-publicist who is gifted at wowing people with glitzy stories and pretend science, and who uses his charisma to make money out of perfectly good people.

These aren't empty claims - I've explained them and backed them up in detail, and there's plenty more I can say if you have questions.

I can see quite clearly that he's misleading many many people, and I think the decent thing to do is to shine some light on what he is presenting to people. I've presented what I believe, and I've invited discussion.

Let me ask you - if you could see someone was a fake, wouldn't it be a bit silly to ask him respectfully about his theories? What would you do?

And if he had a whole load of followers who might get upset with you for suggesting that he was a fake, some of whom seem to be very defensive indeed, would you give them all your name and address and invite them round for tea?

I can see that you like what he's presented to you. I know a lot of people do. I'm not out to stop you liking it if that's what you want to do - just to let you know that there are other points of view if you want them. I hope you're able to see that there could be reasons other than malice why someone might publicly criticise someone else's work.

Please also note that the criticisms are straightforward expositions of his theories and his 'physics' and what that implies about his integrity, and not insinuations about his character. I think it's best to stick to the facts. If you have to rely on fantasised versions of someone else's intentions to make your case, that would tend to suggest that you don't actually have an argument. I wouldn't want to do that.

Patrick said...

Mr. Bob-a-Anonymus,

The regrettable thing about your critique of Nassim Haramein's theories and his line of thinking is the personal undertone peppered throughout.

The whole enterprise of taking Mr. Haramein to task on a number of, otherwise perfectly valid issues, is undermined by the ever present smugness (and length) of your 'critique'.

Disguised -initially- as an interesting read for any skeptical and open minded person; the whole thing becomes a very depressing and disturbing read once the inuendo and frustration starts bleeding out of every paragraph.

The abundand rethorical questions posed troughout are insulting to me as a reader. This validation seeking and manipulative questioning seems totally out of place.

I commend Mr. Haramein for his gracious and enlightening replies and his often humorous handling of your harsh anonymous words. I'll take his balanced mind and creative thinking over your representation of universal truths any day.

In a weird but not entirely unsatisfying way I must conclude that in the end you have done Mr. Harameins quest more good then harm.

The Universe works in mysterious ways indeed..

Patrick Muller, The Netherlands

Bob said...

Hello Patrick, and thank you for your thoughts.

What you refer to sweetly as my 'critique' consists of dozens of examples of the ways in which Haramein misleads people through the claims that he makes and through his abuse of scientific ideas.

It seems I can add you to my long list of people who tell me either that I have no right to criticise Haramein or that I don't do it nicely enough, who love to read all sorts of fantasised intentions into my writing, and who aren't actually able to disagree with any of the content.

So... either you haven't understood any of the rational arguments that I've presented, or you value style over content so much that you prefer to ignore the content entirely?

Perhaps it's a little of both. That's ok. I can only apologise -I'm not big on style and never have been. Many people will always go for the 'gracious' nonsense that makes them feel nice rather than seek out a truth with a degree of rational content to it. Who can blame them.

I've never been under the illusion that using basic physics to explain why Haramein's scientific ideas are garbage will ever convince all those people who don't care one iota whether or not there are straightforward reasons for it being false. As I've said before, I'm quite happy for Haramein to surround himself with such people. It's very fitting.

Anyway, do let me know if you actually disagree with anything I've said.

Anonymous said...

I must say Patrick, that was a very eloquent load of horse-manure indeed.

That you find merit in Mr. Haramein's words might not be something you want to go bragging about on the internet though; If you ever decide to read any real physics (and actually understand it), you might look back and feel a tad embarrassed that you claimed to be enlightened by Mr. Haramein's words...unless, of course, it turns out that Mr. Haramein is right and his theories only SEEM like nonsense to the physics community because he's the only one intelligent enough to remotely understand them (which you're obviously taking on faith). Then again, you're pretty much anonymous too so what the hell...am I right...eh?

Still I have to say, pointless drivel though it may be,(as if his theories have any more credibility because you like the guy...that should seal the deal with those Nobel Prize folks), your post was very well written! Nice job!

Patrick Muller said...

You have every right to criticize Mr. Haramein's research as you see fit. On this particular subject it's just a shame you continue to do so in poor taste, that's all I'm saying to you Bob.

It's not so much a matter of style as it is a the condiscending tone you strike. It is the absence of basic respectfulness in several directions that makes your expose disagreeable to me.

Clearly you have love for the subject matter and the current prevailing scientific paradigm. You may even have some genuine points there to take on Mr. Haramein. I lack the deeper understanding to simply agree or disagree with either side on the mathematical points raised. I was not even trying.

The mere fact that Mr. Haramein has taken the time to reply to your comments in the way he did resonates with me (pun intended).

More power to him.

Bob said...

That's fair enough. Perhaps you can understand that if I discover someone who clearly has very little understanding of physics, making a name for himself by claiming to be revolutionising the subject and misleading thousands of people, it doesn't make a lot of sense to treat him with respect. I find what he's doing pretty abominable.

I'd much rather just tell it as I see it - the guy's a fake: here's why, here's why, here's why again, take it or leave it. Of course he's going to pull out the 'prevailing scientific paradigm' argument - it plays on peoples prejudices and turns them against anyone who use any rational argument to show that he's wrong.

In reality it doesn't matter whether or not you accept a single thing in the 'prevailing scientific paradigm.' Unless your paradigm is to eschew basic fact itself, if you look beneath the surface his ideas are palpably ridiculous.

His reply is a very slick piece of PR, mostly written by his staff (as one of his staff told me). The physics in it is lame, but his supporters don't know that. He's a shrewd character and to people who don't understand enough to know better and don't care to ask too many questions, I can see why they like his approach.

As Groucho said, "the secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made."

Patrick Muller said...

“If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.” - Albert Einstein

Bob said...

Oh cool, a bogus Einstein quote. Thanks Patrick.

I guess if that's your belief, the fact that it's blatantly wrong isn't going to bother you. :-)

Patrick Muller said...

I'll put my mother's name to it next time. Surely that will make it one less fact for your brain to check and give you a few precious minutes more to contemplate on it in the context of your Secret of Life quote.

I wonder what Einstein would have to say about all this pesky holistic science stuff though..

Bob said...

I took it in the context of your previous comments. It resonated with them.

AP said...

@ Patrick

Gentlemen Gentlemen..... This acrimony is needless! LOL

Patrick-when it comes to the physics, I am sorry but you are just dead wrong. I don't know what other words to use because it is a fine line between telling somebody the facts and making them feel like they have been insulted. Actually it was Bob who provided me with an excellent speech by Phil Plait which in a way touches on this very issue here.

Let me first say, I have even presented Nassim's theories to other friends of mine, or introduced old teachers of mine to his work. Okay? I supported him, and I though many of his ideas were revolutionary. When it came to the math, I just went ahead and again, assumed that Nassim had done the math correctly, is in debate and peer-review with a lot of great , University career-researchers and everything is moving along.

In my field(emergency management) we have a "science" we follow. Namely the science of "Incident Command or NIMS, etc etc and emergency planning (to skip a lot of details) and natural disaster preparedness rests fundamentally upon how well you know and understand sciences like geology, seismology etc etc Geologist consult with us and other scientist provide parts of the framework for our field, chemist for Hazmat teams etc etc all sorts of specialist involved......There is a science to it all.

Now if some individual comes and puts up a website, and then claims he knows about "real emergency management" and says things which are just plain WRONG, and to boot hes not part of a public or private sector firm,nor a state, federal or local, government agency then we tend to call him a "quack".

This goes for all technical fields. That is how the world works.

So why wouldn't it be true for the field everybody likes to talk about too? Physics? Ahh, here everybody wants a piece, and that is why so many pseudoscientist arise in this area. Primary for ONE reason alone, the other fields won't allow it. BUT-metaphysics and new age philosophies allow for a bit of variance in this. And individuals who are prone to liking eastern philosophies or meditation or meta-physics(which is all fine) will take a liking to people like Nassim. But there is one difference. The science, the math the experts and the specialist. There are exotic theories involving all kinds of amazing beauty, but it is constantly scrutinized, analyzed and re-worked, by hard working men and women-who believe it or not do NOT have some campaign to keep the "truth" hidden....no they are hard working men and women like you and me. And guess what? They also don't sell Dvd's either, .....their point is made, oh you bet they present some awesome far out material, but the difference is, the audience are experienced members of the physics community who won't let a tiny little mistake by, and thats why our Standard Model becomes the best it can be! With years of work!

I don't need to see much from Bob for me to know he is more equipped then Nassim to speak physics, all I have to do is confirm it with the hundreds of other scientist who tell us real everyday predictions which work when applied!

They Work! The technology you have in your home comes from Physics working the way physicist say it works, not the way Nassim Haramein says it works. Period!

Nothing else to say on that!

AP said...

I wanted to clarify here: "The science, the math the experts and the specialist. There are exotic theories involving......" that is supposed to read "exotic physics theories" There are many (as you my know) exotic physics theories, but just like the other fields I mentioned above, they have to go through fact checking, and a scientific process.

NOTHING in our world comes from just guessing. And all of the NH supporters, or anybody who wants to use catchy slogans like " well Einstein failed math" so what? SO therefore the point is made that since Einstein was rejected when he first produced his work, means that since Nassim is being rejected by Bob-that MUST mean Nassim is a fallen hero beyond his time? Nooooooo!

That is facile analogous logic my friend.

Look-I know and love many of the concepts that NH brought up-but when it comes down to it, he just is not a scientist by any measure of the word. And he takes other peoples ideas on top of that, plus there is no progress from him. It is always a new excuse, and while we all recognize it is tough now days with money.,....I MEAN COME ON! Show me something more then Bike Ride trips or meditation sessions. Clips of other people's videos like the Geoff guy, who isn't a scientist himself, but that clip doesn't really even relate to NH anyway.

Look I love fractals, and aliens, I want there to be a visitation to Earth so badly, I like the religion section of his speech, because he has way more credible facts for that then the physics, he needs to stick with metaphysics or consciousness studies which could be very cool, amazing!

Nassim was confronted by Bob. OKay, so I looked up what Bob was saying myself....AND ITS ALL CORRECT! Everything critique Bob makes of NH is just about 99% accurate in terms of the physics.

Come on Patrick if you are smart guy I think you can sense that NH just is a nice guy who likes to hang out with people. I though he was really smart, but I will be a big enough of a man to admit his assertion he knew and operated on the level of 20 YEARS of physics boils down to a few videos, some general relativity thrown in there with singularity dynamics, and then words like "dynamics" used a lot.

Rotational physics was thought of and accounted for long before NH

Bob said...

Wow... thanks AP.

Patrick Muller said...

Hi AP,

If you read my posts (here and in other sections) you will notice they deal with the issue of common decency and, to a lesser extent, with my opinions on Bob's motives and online behaviour.

My intention in commenting was not to debunk the debunker, so to speak. Although Bob does try to draw me out on to his factoid battleground by weighing my every word on a golden scale. Nassim Haramein's responses schould speak for themselves and are sure to keep Bob busy for weeks to come, here and on the other sites he has erected. It will all inevitably lead to something good I guess..

You are free to read all of this and still disagree on where I'm coming from AP. I believe my posts(and those of others) reflect a certain sentiment that goes beyond Bob's precious factoids.

In the end it all boils down to where human instinct and your true intuition takes you in matters like these.

I do agree on your LOL! though. :)

- Patrick Muller, The Netherlands

Bob said...

You have actually made a perfectly reasonable point - that I should be nicer to people when pointing out that they're full of crap. That's your opinion and you're very welcome to air it here.

Of course, what I should do isn't your right to decide, any more than it's my right to tell you what you should do. But your point is made.

Regarding your continuing rants about how hateful I am, what my motivations are, what I'm trying to do, etc. - which now comprises most of your comments - that's just childish and pointless. They're fantasies, Patrick, not opinions.

I'm not interested in your fantasies. Of course lots of people prefer caricatures to reality, so perhaps you'll make them happy, but it really is a twisted approach to "decency" that you have there.

If that's what you want to do, please do it somewhere else. This blog is written for people who believe that facts exist and are worth more than prejudice. It's not written to be convincing for people like you. That would be hubris.

Patrick Muller said...

'People like me' Bob?

Look, I made my opinion on your piece of critique in my first 2 posts and was perfectly happy to leave it at that. it where YOUR replies that prompted additional 'rants' from me. I'm not fond on having to perpetuate my problem with your crusade, but you keep challenging me with evading replies about the importance of facts, exposing frauds what not.

The height of your horse is revealed in the above post. So I'll leave it at that.

I've said my piece so let's agree to disagree on what's more important (facts or behavior) indeed.


A poet once said "The whole universe is in a glass of wine." We will probably never know in what sense he meant that, for poets do not write to be understood. But it is true that if we look at a glass closely enough we see the entire universe. There are the things of physics: the twisting liquid which evaporates depending on the wind and weather, the reflections in the glass, and our imaginations adds the atoms. The glass is a distillation of the Earth's rocks, and in its composition we see the secret of the universe's age, and the evolution of the stars. What strange array of chemicals are there in the wine? How did they come to be? There are the ferments, the enzymes, the substrates, and the products. There in wine is found the great generalization: all life is fermentation. Nobody can discover the chemistry of wine without discovering, as did Louis Pasteur, the cause of much disease. How vivid is the claret, pressing its existence into the consciousness that watches it! If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that Nature does not know it! So let us put it all back together, not forgetting ultimately what it is for. Let it give us one more final pleasure: drink it and forget it all!".

- This guy

AP said...

This quote is a good one, still doesn't help to support any of the points you made. Although, what is does do is to point out how diverse and exotic some of our most mainstream (MS is a loose term) physicist are, and how well-rounded qualities are part of these physicist who NH says are limited in their approach. It also shows how these, "precious facts", as you call them in a negative mocking tone, are needed if we are going to interact with our world in any reasonable fashion and simply just ignore facts , reason and previously known methods which work and have provided us with the technology we have today.


You said your point was that Bob more or less is rude and you are not concerned with the physics so much as teaching him a lesson in etiquette. But in doing so, you have become rude yourself, and more importantly more then one person is telling you this now. You can pretend that it is because me and him are friends, or make insults about what my purposes are, but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong Patrick. And you are trying to support someone who wants to teach wrong material to people and then getting upset if we want to challenge that ..

Nassim's responses speak for themselves alright, they are a clever way of NOT answering the questions posed in physics, or from a physics stand point. Maybe in your world it is okay to assume that ignore vital issues and just creep onwards towards more nonsense, and take people's money while doing it, but not in mine.

And if you think that makes somebody "hateful" or "bitter" as you have described us, thats fine-but it clearly explains your level of professionalism. You get angry at someone who is speaking the truth.

And by the way man, I guess you should stick to the reprimanding of behavior and insults where you call people names, because you definitely don't know anything about real physics or even Nassim Haramein's "physics" for that matter. IF you want to discuss the NASA footage go ahead, but I already made my points, which apparently were solid enough to cause you to switch the conversation to my "bitterness"

Patrick Muller said...

Hello AP,

Look at your comment, now back to mine. Now back at your comment now back to mine. Sadly it isn't mine, but if you stoppedtrolling and started posting legit comments it could look like mine.

Look down, back up, where are you? You're scrolling throughcomments, writing the comment your comment could look like. What did you post? Back at mine, it's a reply saying something you don't want to hear.

Look again the reply is now scientific fact. Anything is possible when you think before you post. Im on a chair.

Bob said...

Thanks for the Feynman quote. It's very true – we mustn't forget that nature is a unified whole, even as we examine parts of it in detail.

Haramein's method of 'unifying' everything is to drag it all down to the level of pseudo-scientific pseudo-spiritual money-spinning bullshit. We deserve better, and indeed we can do much better.

You seem oddly keen to instill some behavioural change in me: that I should treat disreputable men, their ideas and those who defend them with more respect. Or at least not act like I'm right when I'm right. I'm not convinced that would be a good thing.

And it seems a silly thing to be concerned over in the end.

I wonder why those who try to refute my criticisms always seems to end up scrabbling around at this level of pettiness. Whatever anyone might think of my tone, I've said some quite substantial things. You could at least try to defend Haramein's ideas...

Patrick Muller said...

"(...)why those who try to refute my criticisms always seems to end up scrabbling around at this level of pettiness. Whatever anyone might think of my tone, I've said some quite substantial things. You could at least try to defend Haramein's ideas..."

Yes you did. And no I won't.

If you'll allow me one final rant on this issue I'll try to elaborate on the pettiness of my replies;

Do you remember the very moment you felt compelled to challenge Mr. Haramein on his physics? Perhaps you felt like someone was making a mockery of a field of knowledge that you love and hold very dear. Mathematics and fundamental physics are things of beauty for sure. Maybe you can also conjure up the feeling you get when yet another man or woman tries to defend his quest after you crafted what was, in your opinion, a firm rebuttal. Surely the mathematically challenged or those otherwise suffering from delusions of adequacy should refrain from commenting on your piece.

Now back to me. ;)

Well, maybe when I read your expose and some of your replies I felt a similar kind of anger. And maybe I suddenly felt less interested in defending Nassim Haramein, because something else was more disturbing to me while watching you go about 'exposing' a fellow. Maybe I thought, you know what, damn the math. Damn your factoids. Maybe I'm one of those people who say, "No Bob, YOU'RE wrong.." when someone reciprocates mildly and then has the balls to extend his hand to you in willingness to open up a courteous dialog on the points you raised. Maybe I felt compelled to say something about that. It said 'please comment' pretty clearly at the bottom..

You know, maybe some of those who try to refute your particular brand of criticisms love science as much as you, but at the same time don't like to live in a world where conduct takes a backseat to credentialism. Not anymore. I'm not talking about 'being nice' either. Maybe some people are more inclined to root for the advancement of social process when given access to a forum. Maybe some of them could even be respected scientists themselves. Let's hope so.

I personally don't think you deserve ALL of the criticism you get, but on the other hand you do make a lot of pointy statements that go beyond the scope of the scientific issues you are so eager to defend. Clearly these catch peoples attention too. If you can't take the heat from all directions why campaign so broadly?

Admittedly it must be a lot easier to take when your name and reputation is not up for grabs, but I digress..

To me, this is important stuff Bob. I just wish you had taken another route. And I sure wish you had taken Mr. Haramein's up on his offer. Not only so we all could have benefited from whatever clarity would have come out of it; but also for the beauty of it.

The benefits of this course of action where known thousands of ages ago and it irks me that anno 2010 people are still, ehm, ..scrabbling around THESE tried and true facts.

< continues below >

Patrick Muller said...

< continued from post above >

As for all the things I could have said in defense of Mr. Haramein and his quest; I respectfully decline to do so here.

I happen to know for a fact that this is an honest man's life's work. I just can't show you the equations for my intellect. Surely as there are frauds and cooks in this field, this man is certainly not one of them. He's way out there that's for sure..

But don't take my word for it. Go beyond the obvious.

We all have to identify and learn to break our own indoctrination are we expected to move forward at all as a civilization. But let us do so as brothers not as rivals.

Bob, I apologize for this final mega rant. The devil made me do it ;) I don't hold a grudge and I truly wish you well, whoever you may be..

So I'll leave you (and my friend AP) then with a another cherished (timestamped) Feynman story, because I sure love the gentleman's mind. :)

Cheers, Patrick Muller (The Netherlands)

Bob said...

Ok Patrick. I can see this is all very important to you, but I do think you're misguided in directing it at what's going on on my blog.

Your depiction of me feeling that someone was making a mockery of my field is nothing like what happened - this blog hasn't arisen from some kind of hurt. I just saw lots of people being fed misleading information, and thought that some of them would be interested in having some light shone on it. It's very simple.

Most 'debunking' style blogs don't get too involved in the comment thread. I haven't done this before, and I can now see a lot of sense in that. I wasn't expecting tens of thousands of visitors and hundreds of comments. Rather than ignore people, I chose to address comments individually. If people have asked me questions, I've answered them; If they've been kind, I've thanked them; if they've said something that is incorrect, I've explained why I think it's incorrect.

I don't know how you've got this picture of people reciprocating mildly and me attacking them. I'll admit that I make an effort not to let anyone get away with misinformation or slandering without a rebuttal - if people try to feed me crap, I reject it. That seems pretty sensible to me - I don't think that's what you're suggesting.

Your accusation of credentialism also seems very bizarre, given that I haven't even provided any credentials! Above all, I want people to judge my arguments on their own merits, not on who I am.

Imagine you wrote a blog about Dutch poetry, and I came along and started attacking your ideas there, despite not speaking Dutch. This is what I'm dealing with here. As I keep saying, this is a blog about physics ideas. The only people who insist on arguing are people who know very little physics. Am I not allowed to mention physics when I respond, out of fear of credentialism? You do come up with some twisted ideas, my friend.

Bob said...

Regarding Haramein's offer - there has never been an offer.

I did exactly what "The Resonance Foundation" asked of me in their comment, and I responded to it in detail. I also made perfectly reasonable comments on the blog posts there, which were all deleted - not because they were offensive, but because they raised inconvenient questions. I'll happily show you copies of what was rejected if you're interested, so you can judge for yourself.

I'd be very happy to dialogue with people in the Resonance Project. I have tried on several occasions to do so and been rejected. The problem is that they don't want to deal with someone with a vast array of arguments that contradict them - especially not in public. This is understandable for a cult; but certainly not for a scientific organisation.

My experience of the Resonance Project is that people are on the whole extremely pleasant until you start pointing out what is wrong with their ideas. I was banned entirely from the Facebook group for asking questions that nobody had an answer to, and pointing out the inconsistencies in what people were saying. I said nothing offensive. Again, this is understandable for a religion, but they want to be treated as a scientific organisation. You show me a single scientific organisation that doesn't welcome robust challenges to its ideas.

I've noticed that many of the links I've made to youtube videos of Haramein speaking have now been "removed due to copyright violations." Including one that I got from the Resonance Project's own website! The website still links to it (check the "Unified Field Theory" link on here). Perhaps they're starting to realise that some of their videos are actually a massive liability. If so, I wonder if they're explaining all this to their followers.

The current situation is that they're refusing to discuss their ideas on their site, and they're refusing to engage with me here. Meanwhile they're banning me from forums, and trying to remove the evidence that I've been pointing to.

If he wants to discuss anything, he's very welcome here. Has he provided any public forum in which I can discuss these matters with him and his supporters? Absolutely not.

As you know, I'm writing because he is misleading people on a vast scale, and people deserve to know this. If what he's doing is "an honest man's life's work", then he is a severely deluded man. He wouldn't have to look far to see that his physics work is demonstrably false on every front. He chooses to ignore all that, and focus on the adulation of his followers instead. Perhaps now he'll find it harder to ignore… but I'm sure he'll find a way. I don't see that as something to admire.

Your advice to me is now to ignore the obvious. This is what it comes down to, isn't it.

I'm sure you and plenty of others do sincerely like him and his ideas. And perhaps you genuinely believe that he's doing a serious science, and that I'm just causing trouble. It's fine, if you want to believe that, go ahead. But you'd be very wrong.

I also wish you well, Patrick. I hope you won't take offence at this post, just because we disagree on some things. You can see that I have taken the time to give your concerns quite a lot of attention over the past few days. You know very well that whenever you post ideas on here that are wrong, I'll just keep on explaining why. :-)

In the end, it IS about the physics. The whole set of articles is about physics. Physics like this isn't a matter of opinion. If someone pretends to understand it in order to impress paying followers, then there's really no denying that they're a fraud or a kook. To use your words. One or the other… or both.

AP said...

Patrick, whoa. I didn't see this out of context, babble from you, which still didn't address my post, and reply to your first, and original insult towards me, before I had even opened my mouth, or insulted you.

So...I did scroll up, and back down. And up again. And back down again. And unfortunately for you, there is absolutly no evidence whatsoever which exists that points to me "trolling".

So.....perhaps, now you can scroll back up and lets try very hard now Patrick to see if we can be clear on what events really took place, its simple to see, right there for anyone to read it.

1)I discounted your claims of what the issue on this forum really was, whether it was Bob's "untactful decency" in approaching Nassim Haramein(as you persisted , OR, if it was simply that you were upset that Nassim Haramein, had been exposed for his inaccurate and faulty physics and his complete disregard for not only the way in which academic science actually operates, but a general lack of understanding about how ANY science, or technical field operates.

2) I then also commented on the other forum or page in regards to your specific attacks on Bob and his credibility. I simply spoke of what I know to be true about his knowledge and information on the subject of physics when it came down to a question of his anonymity, a feature of the discussion which you time and time again brought into play, whenever you needed to down play or discount a point he was trying to make. So, again, I spoke about what I saw to be true, what you were claiming, and about what I have experienced.
(cont)

AP said...

3)At this point, what happend? Come on Patrick, come one...scroll up dude, scroll up dude......?!?. Do you see? Now scroll back down, and understand that, on the other page of this forum you responded to my support of Bob, and my denouncing of Nassim as "bitter". Which..... correct me if I am wrong, is and was AN INSULT! My all measured and definition of what a subtle or overt insult can be! Right?......And by the way-at that point I hadn't made one negative comment about your behavior. Commenting on some one else's behavior in a negative way (whether it is subtle or overt says that you are attempting to describe their actions back to them. In your case it is first strike at making an insult towards that person. The moment you do, you have moved away from the topic and hand and then started insulting the person your talking to.

4) Then,I had observed you exhibit the same behavior towards Bob, 10-12 times before our discussion even started, jumping on him describing his behavior,and making often direct insults. This was most likely because you had nothing of substance to say in defense of Nassim Haramein, nothing of substance in even trying to support Nassim Haramein.

Actually there were many examples you could have tried to give from Nassim Haramein's version of a "Unified Field Theory", which would have been a tiny bit more difficult(although ultimately achievable) to "debunk" for Bob, or whoever!

But it is clear you are not even familiar with Nassim's physics. I don't blame you, most of his supporters aren't, they just take bits and pieces of silly ideas and then go match them up with nonsensical theories like that "Hollow Earth" mess.

4) Lastly, you are back to attempting a description on my behavior again,and you have done it couple more times to Bob on your way out.

5) The one time you did actually try and shoot for something of substantive value in defending Nassim's physics is when you gave those poor example of the NASA footage evidence, complete with missing information from Nassim's pseudo science.
(cont)

AP said...

Alright, so Bob is an idiot, he is mean, and not decent, nothing he says you will listen to fine. I am bitter, and therefore do not meet or exceed your requirement for "gnarly dudes" who know about physics. Fine. So what I did was, I took Nassim Haramein, and all his links, and papers, and neato presentations along with a warning letter informing that this endeavor might be a huge waste of his time, and submitted them to my undergraduate astrophysics professor at my Alma mater.

Within about, oh...4 hours he had looked over all the papers, read the website, and everything there is to read, saw a presentaion and said this:

I looked the materials over quickly. It is a pretty good example of why research journals have peer review and even the unreviewed pre-print web servers require credentials of some sort. For the most part his stuff looks like a physics version of what psychologists call "word soup." That is a random collection of words strung together roughly according to the rules of grammar but with no meaning whatsoever. It is pretty much free association, starting from basic textbook physics and ideas that one might get from Scientific American and Science News articles. Your friend's blog looks like a reasonable analysis but I am rather sorry that he wasted his time on it since it will have little effect.

So now you can decide if this is sufficient for you. Is it sciencey enough for you to not call this person a name too. But if they managed to come on here, and said anything to you-you probably would call them a few names, then run off for a little while, before returning to make some more ridiculous statements.

Patrick, you do not know any physics, not even basic basic conceptual ideas or the process by which you can research just a little tiny tiny bit to see NOBODY in the science community, underground, mainstream, above ground, sidestream whatever you want to call then...NOBODY agrees with Nassim Haramein's "physics"

Can you talk about that? Yes..just like you tried with the NASA video, but this time, don't say silly statements like "eh eh hey look look, here, Nassim Haramein shows us a thingy that flew by the sun, and then a blast came, and then, and then whoosh aliens came out, and black holes formed...."

Try to explain an coherent thought first. And don't use the " I just don't like Bob's decency" blanket as an excuse again. Explain how Nassim is doing physics and how he is not a fraud , then support yourself. And thats it.

Aaron said...

Someone needs to make a concise video demonstrating his fraud and poor physics.

I am still up in the air about "guru" Haramein, I still regard fractals at the center of the initial misunderstanding as to why Haramein is sincere. I don't think he is a fraud due to his sincerity, but who the hell can honestly say they know what the hell a proton is anyway. Science loves numbers because they don't lie. But ain't nobody hanging out with a Proton and asking it questions. And if you were, he'd disappear like that if you turned your back.

Seriously someone needs to make a video, because it's a good idea, exposing the fraud and poor science in a concise way, you'd be very helpful.

I believe the initial twist on Haramein's beliefs that makes you think differently are his work with fractals.

If he is a fraud, shame, but, it needs to be demonstrated. Perhaps he'd learn from it. That would be good for him especially if he is sincere but incorrect.

If he is sincere, and correct, then yeah we live in a whacked out universe where aliens make babies with humans and Jesus' purity was created by the Arc of the Covenant while while the Virgin Mary got it on with God/the Great Singularity. Oh and spaceships and crop circles made by aliens AND Mother Earth.

It seems like a big deal, I just wish someone would handle the execution of debunking him better. You guys make it sound laughable. Just illustrate the point better.

Bob said...

Hi Aaron. Yes, it'd be great if someone made a video. I'm not sure what they could say that would convince you though.

I can see why you might be 'up in the air', and I can understand why some people aren't convinced by my debunking. It's really hard to know what else to say. The unfortunate fact is that Haramein's attempts at science are laughable... it's just difficult to explain why.

In another post I gave the analogy of some guy pretending to be speaking Mandarin when actually he's just making Chinesey-sounding noises. If you don't know Mandarin, it all sounds the same. If he presents his Chinesey-sounding noises in a smiley approachable way, and mixes them with crowd-pleasing truisms and spiritual platitudes, then obviously many people will choose him.

How would you debunk that? How can you point out that it's all fabricated without sounding like you're malicious and out to ruin people's lives? How can you explain that there's a real Mandarin out there, the language of a billion people, and this guy is playing on it, and playing you for a fool? (Whether or not he sincerely believes he's speaking Mandarin is another matter, but hell, why would that even matter?)

The obvious answer is to say go and learn Mandarin and spend time in China. But I know that not everyone is either willing or able to do that. So what else can I say?

I'm not sure what you think the hundreds of thousands of scientists out there have been doing for the last hundred years. Some people seem to think all scientists spend their lives in dusty libraries, and spoonfeed their students some kind of dogma from textbooks and never have a creative thought in their lives.

People have been working with protons for a hundred years, trying to find out as much as possible. You'd be amazed what's been uncovered about them, and the detail and care with which it's been done. The Large Hadron Collider is the most recent of these investigations... what can I say? Go and check it out. If those guys aren't hanging out with a proton and asking it questions, what are they doing?

Anyone who knows protons - and there are many, many such people - knows that what Haramein says is wrong. Not because they're closed-minded, but because they know protons. Haramein has never explored the properties of a proton in his life. He just knows how to work an audience.

Regarding fractals... Haramein's presentation of fractals is no better or worse than any of his other attempts at presenting scientific or mathematical concepts. It's all extremely misguided and misinformed, and based, at heart, on an underestimation of how much depth all these ideas have been explored by people over the years, how much is known and how clearly some things are understood. And relying on the same underestimation by his audience... and his audience are happy to oblige. The ones who stick around, at any rate.

Bob said...

So what can I say, other than there's a whole world of understanding out there that you have every right to question but that you'd be very wrong to dismiss as ignorant or closed-minded.

Some of the concepts involved are really not conveyable in a convincing way without first guiding people through the various tools that have been used to explore and investigate and conceptualise and question all the issues involved. If you want to study physics and mathematics (and if you want to do it in an extremely questioning and skeptical way, then you can, that would be a very good way to do it!) and learn some of these tools, then you'll see how we've come to know what we know, and where the limits of understanding actually lie. Then you'd see quite clearly the massive flaws in Haramein's presentations and his approach.

If you don't learn Mandarin, then I guess to you it all sounds like Chinesey noises, and you could easily go around believing that nobody understands any of it, and go for the smiley guy with the spiritual platitudes.

I honestly don't know how I could illustrate these things any clearer than I have in this post. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

Any sensible person would surely ask someone who they know to have some genuine familiarity with Mandarin. If you don't want to study it in its depths yourself, then I'd seriously suggest you do that.

AP said...

Aaron, let me see if I can help, because I think I know what your missing here. Though, I will say about your video comment, yes I would like to see one, its just hard to say somewhat anonymous and make a video I guess. But if some people want to get together and do it, I will participate and provide what I can.

Alright- the main reason you are "still up in the air" about might be related to my point here.

Before Haramein, I knew a small amount of proper physics, which is actually a admirable fact considering I had no formal physics degree. But, unlike Haramein, I had taken some college and graduate level courses at University, which happens to be some of the material he includes in his "theory" at different points. And not only did I study some of the physics which he uses in his, but also some of the other subject matter areas he discusses.

In short, all of the concepts which you find that you like Aaron, they ALL came from other "evil mainstream" physicist. Which NH constantly puts down.

The other blaring fact is not only does he put them down, BUT since he denounces most of the results which have come from 100+ years of rigorous experimentation, he doesn't use those equations and mathematical models either, he uses none of their previous mainstream work, or very little. He does uses some GR-SR, but also denounces Einstein's work in so many subtle ways. But thats a different story.

Anyway, since he doesn't use those results, he has to do do his own experiments right? I mean where are his results going to come from since he doesn't use existing known results from Quantum Physics, or particle physics, or Classical physics.....where?

Nowhere, because he isn't part of a public University or governmental agency nor is he really part of any well funded results producing private sector firms. Resonance Project doesn't even really have a staff of physicist working there.

So far I have seen only Elizabeth Rousher, who seems to work with him and guide him on anything involving General Relativity. But that's about it, I doubt she even whole hardheartedly incests in his approach to the Unified Field theory.

Benoit Mandelbrot is GREAT, Fractals are GREAT!, they have contributed to science and technology ten times over! But they are not his! There are no serious fractal cosmologist, though many of them do study fractal patterns on large scales. There is great work being done in this area, but it is being done by University researchers, who put hard work into their final product or presentation,and they consider other published works while they are doing this. Nassim does NONE of this.

SO my suggestion to you is, if you like Fractals and enjoy these types of sciences, go search for the real field work done by real physicist or scientist in these areas.

Bob is right that is it hard to distinguish Mandarin from Chinese if you don't know either, just like it is hard to distinguish wll crafted pseudoscience from real science. But your smart, and it is not hard if you look into things passed level 2.

I would actually say, out of all his topics covered, the pieces on ancient cultures is much more likely to be correct then his physics. Advanced Civilization visiting us in antiquity is a old, known theory which has some credible ground.

Aaron said...

I don't know why a video is the best way to go about it, but I would love to see one on YouTube.

Obviously, in Physics it would be hard to represent my aptitude. I will say, since I watched those NH videos, I have thought about the Cosmos more than I ever had, 100 fold. That's probably a good thing. I hope not to be mislead, I have been researching on my own to whatever interest I may have. I stumbled upon this site, looking for criticism. I found it. It's great, I have been reading through a bit of Bob's posts more thoroughly, but trust me, not all things are clear, a video has pictures and diagrams my monkey brain can understand. Numbers just don't do it for me sometimes...

Certain functions of Physics are not properly brought forth. To me geometry is the fundamental basis for everything. Structures of energy would obviously respond to geometric alignments while they explode through the Universe.

It is amazing to me that the fine structure constant, it's fundamental basis of why we are here, is not studied, but used in equations to prove other shit.

137 measures damn close to the Phi ratio of 360 degrees. Geometry.

It's almost as if Geometry is a fun side off of the cool world of Physics, when in truth all structures base their existence from it.

Don't get me wrong here, I am holding on to NH's sincerity. I first realized he was whacked out when he wife was having birth while having and orgasm on the News. Yet no mention of his work in the Unified Field Theory. Weird. Also his association with Marko Rodin doesn't help, he's a bit whacked out, couldn't watch his stuff.

A fractal nature of the Universe however is a huge different understanding of how if functions with Physics today, and how it's understood (I mean seriously, once entering like, third grade, the teacher would be like "It's all fractals!" and you'd get it (supposing it were true)). I had never heard the idea of it before, but when you start thinking that way, it's funny to realize you can. Whether it be false or not.


Perhaps that is why NH is doing alright for himself. Maybe there is some truth to fractals in nature that isn't properly represented in our understanding of the Universe and our place here.

If this however is about NH's math and not his sincerity, than I am out, but please a video would be sweet, where real Physic's numbers starting beating up on NH's "physics" numbers, but no more than 10 minutes. Or someone could do a voice recording over his video, segment by segment (but please just a few swirly diagrams, it's fun to see that stuff).

I am "still up in the air" because certain things are still not understood in physics. My favorite and most obvious is the Fine Structure Constant and it's link to the beautiful balance (golden ratio) that our universe has to exist in, holding true to geometric means.

I think the measurement problem is funny too. Basically to me right now it represents the inability to understand when decay happens because you can't see any smaller, perhaps CERN will show this. When do we get news on that anyway?

Okay, too long

Bob said...

Maybe someone will make a video someday, that'd be good.

The fact is, though, it's human nature to want to believe some of Haramein's stuff, the same as it's human nature to want to believe in santa & fairies. You just have to be willing to let go, and to keep asking why. The people who aren't willing to let go will never be convinced by a ten-minute video.

I'm not going to try to 'prove' anything, but let me be very clear: there's no connection between the fine structure constant and the phi ratio. None at all. You can find numerical coincidences between any two numbers if you dig hard enough (check out some of this stuff for example).

And there are no geometric alignments with tetrahedra or any other shapes. The geometry of the cosmos has been studied in HUGE detail. We already know that it's a curved four-dimensional manifold; and viewed from the largest scale possible, space is extremely smooth and 'flat'. Obviously it's difficult to really see why unless you spend some years studying it - and that's exactly why it's easy for people to sell you santa & fairies ideas about cute little shapes like tetrahedra that you can hand around as a little model.

And yes, as you say, your third grade teacher can say "it's all fractals", and everyone would love to believe it! But it's not true. Fractals are massively important, but it's not all fractals, not in any sense.

Regarding the 'measurement problem', that won't be resolved by CERN. The guys at CERN know how to use quantum theory very precisely, and to take measurements to a massive degree of accuracy. To get more insight into the measurement problem, you need interferometry experiments on things much larger than an atom, such as superconductors or large molecules. In fact we have found out a huge amount about it already since the 1920s... but it's not entirely wrapped up yet.

My overall point is that we need to be aware of the things we want to believe. It's human nature to want to cling to certain things. We always need to be able to be willing to let go of the santa & fairies in order to truly find anything out.

When you do, the universe doesn't disappoint... it really doesn't. So keep investigating!

Oh, and AP - Advanced civilization visiting us in antiquity? You been watching too much History Channel, dude! :-)

Scott Mann said...

Hey Bob,

I just had to drop a line — your blog is spectacular, and your patience is outstanding. You're playing the straight man in Monty Python sketch that's both very sad and utterly hilarious. It must feel Sisyphean, but I was so glad to see someone attempting it. We're so awash in rampant gullibility, baseless opinion and unwarranted certainty, that, I think, every effort to shine the light of reason helps. The world needs more Carl Segans — thank you for doing your part.

Scott Mann said...

Curses. Make that Sagan — Misspelled his name on his birthday.

Bob said...

Ooh, cheers Scott!

Baseless opinion and unwarranted certainty is exactly it. It's horrible. Something is very wrong with education if so many people think they know so many things.

And happy birthday Carl. He's the man.

AP said...

Yes- I second(or third) that...Happy Birthday to Professor Sagan, a man who was able to communicate the wonders of the Cosmos to individuals who generally wouldn't care for it at all!

AP said...

You guys think people with "baseless opinions" are running rampant over in your neck of the woods, well....lets just say over where I teach you would think some of the students have a requirement to form their opinions

1) Christianity
2) Christianity
3) Whatever their friend has text messaged them on their HTC


Haramein has sought out a portion of the public who are "smart" enough and eclectic enough to be interested in the sciences (which most kids find 'boring' now days) but who lack serious skills in judgment and rationality based logic. That is how he grows.

I still think people should get together and come up with a 3 pronged audio-video presentation which denounces Nassim and have it gain movement as part of a larger skeptics blog or DvD release.

Marcin said...

Hi Bob,

Thanks for your comprehensive and simple (well, maybe not for everyone) analisys of NH's theories. His attitude is of course shameful, but views (certainly not his) about vacuum not being empty bother my mind for some time. I'm of course far from making any statements but I'm just wondering what are your views on this matter and do suggest any readings?

Cheers!

Bob said...

Hi Marcin... yes, it's true, the vacuum is not empty but teeming with activity known to physicists as "virtual particles".

They're not really particles in the usual sense at all - they're simply one of the properties of a quantum field, which were predicted by quantum field theories such as QED. They are been observed precisely as the theory predicts, in many many different contexts and experiments, and are now part of the everyday experience of working particle physicists.

The most important property of this activity in the vacuum is that it's always on short-term loan. A particle can appear, or some energy can appear, but only for the tiniest moment of time. They're more like ghosts... if energy is supplied to them, they become real; if not, they disappear.

The vacuum is still a vacuum. The hard fact is that it's the lowest energy state possible, so there's no chance of taking anything from it. But these virtual particles are there, like hungry ghosts, appearing and disappearing until something or someone provides them with enough energy to become real.

Nobody invented this silliness - it's something that emerges unavoidably from theories like QED (which is the most accurately verified theory in the history of the world). There's no doubt that the vacuum is not empty. But while the logic of the theory is sound, it's very difficult to try to describe what actually is there.

Here's a couple of videos that tries to explain it:
QED video part 1
QED video part 2

Marcin said...

Hi Bob,thanks for the videos. I watched them with great interest. The sad thing about Mr Haramein is that he could contribute to the science world if he wasn't so arrogant and self-confident and talked to physicists instead of not involved audience. Maybe he could make sense if he did accept some criticism.

I had a smiliar attitude some time in the past. I'm a musician and once thought that if I didn't listen to others' music I could compose the most original and extraordinary pieces. Quickly I realised that I am just discovering the history of music step by step...

Thanks for your blog, it really cleared up some things for me.

Sean said...

I believe that the issue is the lack of understanding of what a theory is. For some reason many people seem to have the idea that a theory is similar to a guess. This results if many people having the idea that physics is mostly guess work being done by scientists.

This is very wrong! A theory can ONLY hold through real world testing and vigorous data gathering. It is the demonstrable results that hold the theory to be next to fact, not the initial idea behind the theory itself. A good example of real world results would be..oh I dunno...The computer you are typing at.

Having spent much time going through NH's material. I can see he has an idea (albeit a wrong one), but I fail to see a working theory. I can also clearly see the attempt to bend established working theories to support this "idea." I was unable to see any experimentation or real world results to support any of his claims. All I see are claims of this is the way it is because I say so.

Sorry, this is not the way science works. This is not science.

Maybe a light bulb is a black hole... Maybe NH should think about that.

Anonymous said...

If the paper Nassim wrote is flawed as you say how did it win Best Paper award in Physics etc?

Bob said...

He won an award for best physics paper presented at an obscure computing systems conference in Belgium. Search for 'haramein fraud or sage' for details. You can see the the certificate for yourself on his website.

It was judged by the other participants at the conference. They weren't scientists.

The conference organisers had hired part of the management school of a University. Haramein says he won a "prestigious" award "at the University of Liege."

It's not awarded by scientists, and it's not awarded by a university, but he presents it as if it's a grand prize. It's outrageously pretentious. And it catches a lot of people out.

Anonymous said...

Hi, did you not receive my second comment Bob?

Bob said...

I haven't received anything that's not posted up here.

(There are lots of comments by 'anonymous', and obviously I don't know who you are, so I'm not sure how to answer that question)

Anonymous said...

I said that the proceedings of CASYS are published by the American Institute of Physics. Are you saying that they are not scientists? And is Prof Dr Dubois not a scientist?http://www2.ulg.ac.be/mathgen/CHAOS/
http://www2.ulg.ac.be/mathgen/CHAOS/
http://scitation.aip.org/proceedings/confproceed/718.jsp

Bob said...

Yes, you're right. Thank you for pointing that out. I apologise, I went too far in making the blanket statement that they're not scientists, it was rash of me. I don't know, personally, the scientific credentials or understanding of the individual members of the awarding committee.

My understanding is that Daniel Dubois is an artificial intelligence specialist who has opened new avenues in the subject of anticipation within AI and is working to find applications of these across many other disciplines. One of which is physics.

The AIP is of course an umbrella organisation for various bodies of physicists, and they publish several journals, and a whole bunch of conference proceedings. The conference proceedings are just records of what happened at the conference, whereas the journals are actively peer-reviewed.

If Dubois or any of the others on the awarding committee have any expertise in any quantum theory applied to particles such as protons, or any other meaningful studies of the proton, then I would have to admit that their choice of Haramein's paper was extremely strange.

There are a huge number of fundamental flaws in the physics of the paper, contradictions within the theory, and enormous conflicts with the observed properties of protons. But Haramein is a far better public speaker than most physicists, so it doesn't greatly surprise me that his presentation was given the thumbs up by a committee who were required, after all, to make their decision right there and then, and may not have the expertise or the time available to realise the extent of the problems with this paper.

I certainly see no reason to believe that they made the award from a basis of understanding of the nature of the proton.

(It also strikes me as odd that the paper bears no resemblance to the stated scope of the conference, viz "theoretical developments and applications in the modelling and computing of anticipation", but that's another matter.)

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob, wonderful (and hard) job. Conmen as these make a lot of harm to education. It's the bad side of Internet, universal spellbounding by smart unscrupulous guys supported by an army of ignorant bigots who really believe that some Internet browsing can replace years of study and hard work... Keep going. I've got a PhD in Physics but not the guts to put my name so I become forced to engage in endless irrational arguments with a bunch of inspired obstinate blind ignorants. Hence mi recognition and support of your work.

WheelswithinWheels said...

I hope everyone here has read Nassim's Schwarzschild Manifesto (his reply to Bob's critiques). It really goes a long way in showing that Bob's physics, reasoning and witty deconstruction of Nassim's paper aren't the 'end all' explanations that they seem to be.

Bob, it's great that you can be so convicted in your beliefs, and i'm sure that conviction brings you much joy and peace. But i do hope that in time, your own beliefs and understandings may bring you to a place where you are able to satisfy the questions that you currently can't answer (in all aspects of life/science).

I'm glad that you have a great appreciation of nature, because regardless of beliefs, i think appreciation of beauty is one of the biggest key's to enjoying life.

Take Care.
Dan

wendy said...

WheelswithinWheels,

I think what you are saying is probably meant as a goodwill gesture, but it comes across as sounding somewhat facile.

If you really believe that it's in any sense possible for Bob (or anyone else) to come to

" a place where [they] are able to satisfy the questions that you currently can't answer (in all aspects of life/science)."

then I think you are seriously underestimating this universe we live in!

And if you don't really believe it, but just say it for the sake of sounding all friendly and good-humoured, then, why bother.

It would be more respectful, in my view, to genuinely engage with Bob's arguments than to spout generic 'nice' talk about how 'we all get joy from our convictions, but, and I'm not gonna say this straight, boy are YOURS (ie Bob's, in your opinion) wrong!'


I have myself read Nassim's replies on Nassim's own website to 'Bobathon', and I found them to be fairly patronising, arrogant, and certainly in no way constituting a true rebuttal Bob's arguments.

There's really nothing much we can be really sure of about Nassim's ideas until he either a) comes up with some very clear experimental. testable claims or b) has his work looked over by a large, diverse body of theorists for theoretical consistency.

If a) were to occur, well, obviously someone could do the tests and we could see. If, on the other hand, there are no immediately possible tests with current technology, which is the case for some theoretical work, then at least if b) were to occur we could find out whether his ideas appeared at least plausible to a large set of trained and interested eyes looking over them in great depth.

There's nothing wrong with working on very speculative, and not immediately verifiable, stuff - many many theoretical physicists do just this.

But what Nassim does is, rather than announcing, 'Hey, I've got an interesting speculation, is anyone interested in following up this idea with me?", which might lead to some interesting research, he instead just proclaims that his speculations are basically proven fact, and that anyone who questions this must have some kind of problem, or be part of some uptight, blinkered, 'mainstream' clique who just can't see the value of a new idea!

Bob said...

[a note to say there was also a reply from Wendy to Dan's comments, but this has disappeared... I've noticed this happen a few other times with other comments, even my own. It may be that you deleted it, Wendy - that would explain it. If that's not the case, please drop me an email, and I'll look into it. I'm worried that things are disappearing mysteriously by themselves]

Hi Dan

Thanks for your comment.

Can I make a small request of you? Would you please hold off making patronising remarks about the invented version of me that you have in your head? Get to know someone before presuming to address their 'beliefs and understandings'. Otherwise it's just a rather empty cliché and doesn't contribute anything. Thank you.

Ok. As you're probably aware, I've encouraged everyone to check out Nassim's 'Manifesto', and I've written a detailed response to it here.

As I explained there, I'd really like to hear more from people who find his response convincing, and what their reasons are.

So Dan, and anyone else, if you can find any single point in Haramein's response that convinces you that any of my criticisms of his physics are unfounded – then I'd really love to know what it is, and why you find it convincing.

Please be specific and scientific. Haramein consistently claims that his research is science and that he is a serious scientist, and all of my criticisms is centred on his claim to be doing serious science. So if he's not the fake I think he is, there should be some scientific arguments in his favour. Let's get them out in the open!

If you think there are too many to list, that's great... start with your strongest card. And don't be put off if you think I'm too closed-minded to understand - you might convince some others who are. I'll promise to be as fair and open and rational as possible...

Unlike Haramein, I'm very welcoming of any debate that relates to anything I've written (preferably without any outpouring of prejudice).

As an aside, the idea of a 'manifesto' for a scientific theory strikes me as quite obscene. A manifesto is a statement of belief or ideology or doctrine, using rhetoric to persuade other people to conform. Its purpose is to announce the creed, rally the troops and play down the opposition. It may be an appropriate tool for politics if used wisely, but it's a long way from the scientific ideal.

I'm not pretending to be perfect, but I do believe in encouraging debate, welcoming dissent, requesting other people's input to help clarify or correct the ideas being presented.

Haramein's manifesto appears to me to be a rather empty exercise in PR, that will no doubt reassure the faithful. He does have a rather lucrative brand to protect, after all, not to mention his reputation... BUT that's just my opinion, so I'd be very interested to hear more specifically from you if you think there's any content to it.

Lucy said...

Hi Bob
I am now confused. Who do I believe? I too have seen the reference to peer review of NH in American Institute of Physics December publication:
COMPUTING ANTICIPATORY SYSTEMS: CASYS '09: Ninth International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems

Daniel M. Dubois, HEC Management School-University of Liège, asbl CHAOS, Centre for Hyperincursion and Anticipation in Ordered Systems, 4000 Liège 1, BELGIUM

AIP Conference Proceedings 1303

Conference Location and Date: Liege, Belgium, 3-8 August 2009

Subseries: Mathematical and Statistical Physics

Published December 2010; ISBN 978-0-7354-0858-6,

Bob - please could you explain?
regards
Lucy

Bob said...

Hi Lucy

Please see this comment for more details. There's also an interesting debate on abovetopsecret.com, of all places (I was rather late to the party).

Let me know if you have any questions.

wendy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
wendy said...

[part 1 of 2]

Hi Lucy :)

Yes, its a very understandable confusion!

It could easily appear, at a casual glance, that the CASYS award constitutes a peer-reviewed work.

However there are a number of problems which turn up upon deeper inspection.


Basically, this publication is part a set of conference proceedings, not a set of reviewed articles.

The difference is that conference proceedings are not necessarily peer-reviewed in the complete sense of the word. They are a record of what happened at a conference, and are often published pretty much 'as-is' in the form that the authors originally presented them.

This is not just a pedantic use of definitions, its a very real difference in the rules by which things are published.

In a full peer-review, the paper is given to a panel of reviewers, who carefully read it, taking their time, and in the end decide to accept it for publication, reject it, or possibly ask for some alterations and then give it a second review.

For conference proceedings, this doesn't occur. There is a degree of 'informal review' in that the conference organisers will generally read a copy of a presentation before accepting it, but there are no set rules as to how this is done, and it sometimes doesn't happen at all.

So even though the proceedings in this case are published by the AIP, a very legitimate and mainstream body, the fact that they are conference proceedings and not peer-reviewed papers is what is important, not the identity of the publishing body.

You might wonder how it is that this is allowed - shouldn't ALL scientific papers be completely peer-reviewed? Isn't this the very basis of scientific practise?

The reason its allowed is that, within the academic community it is well-known that there is an important difference between conference proceedings and peer-reviewed articles. Thus anyone working in academia will know to place a different degree of trust and legitimacy on a paper depending on in which of the two forms it was published.

Proceedings are used for getting a record out there quickly of 'breaking news' type topics and so on. But if they are truly important, there will ALWAYS be a properly reviewed publication later. (Generally multiple ones.)

So, you might read conference proceedings to get a broad and fast overview of what is going on in an area, but then you would follow up the presentations you thought were interesting by searching for the properly reviewed publications which came after them.

So, the difference is well-understood by those in the field, but its not entirely clear from outside. I'm not sure if NH is deliberately taking advantage of this or if he just doesn't realise himself.

So, to continue - weren't there physicists at the conference? Didn't they confer a prestigious award?

wendy said...

[part 2 of 2]
As discussed above, proceedings do not have the kind of peer-review process expected for journal publications. However, just by getting into the conference, generally a presentation will have had some degree of scrutiny - generally the conference organisers will have had a read over it, and presumably whoever was at the session where it was presented would have listened to it as well!

However this kind of 'review' is very minimal and can in no way replace full peer-review.

The CASYS conference is one which is in a quite exploratory and very interdisciplinary area.

There would have been people from multiple diverse specialties, not all of whom would have necessarily understood all of the talks given by all of the other authors.

Receiving the award means nothing more than that NH presented a talk which looked interesting enough to some people from multiple fields of expertise that they thought 'Let's give this paper the award for the physics division of this conference'

Again, you might be wondering if this is all really kosher - surely, if these people don't fully understand a talk they shouldn't be conferring awards on the author?

I would tend to agree, but the thing to remember, again, is that these awards are NOT hugely important and prestigious. They are NOT intended to confer legitimacy on an author or their work. As discussed above, they are a relatively informal, low-key kind of thing, designed to encourage people to 'give it a go' and so on.

These sorts of awards are mainly a sort of a pat on the back;

The way in which NH is using this award is, I believe, an abuse of the whole principle of the thing - as I've said already, I'm not sure if it's conscious or not.

There's nothing wrong with NH having a degree of pride for receiving one, especially as an autodidact.

Where I take issue though, serious issue, is that he presents the award in a way that makes it very easy for people to assume, like yourself, that at the award really is for a fully peer-reviewed publication, and that it really is very prestigious and grand. It's not, and it's not.



To put it in humorous terms, its like some dude claiming to have won an 'internationally prestigious award for hip-hop dancing', and that it was conferred by a panel of top hip-hop dancers and applauded by assorted glitterati.

This all looks great, but when you look more closely it turns out to actually be an award conferred by a local chapter of something called the 'Exploratory Multi-style Dance Association'.

The specific category for the award was modern interpretive hip-hop/ballet cross.

Most of the judges were actually experts in Scottish Folk Dancing, (at least the ones that were awake, anyway).

However, since the awards ceremony was filmed by the international hip-hop association as part of a special on dance associations, it can look on the surface like they are the ones who conferred the award, and thus that it really is as prestigious as the dude claims!

Myself, I'm not sure if NH is actually being disingenuous when he hypes up the importance of this award, or whether he genuinely doesn't know the difference.

Either way, I wouldn't trust this man to interpret the universe for me!

Anyway, if you really want to know more you could try contacting either the AIP or else the organiser of the CASYS conference and ask them what the intentions are with these kinds of awards and with the publications of conference proceedings.

Mitch said...

2. protons are made of quarks, and quarks aren't made of anything smaller. Electrons aren't made of anything smaller. Or if they are, it's SO small that there's still a huge gap in scale where nothing happens. A big scale gap. No particles. No trees in there. No clouds or mandelbrot sets or mini black holes, just a gap.

I feel this is Wrong. How is it there is "nothing". Everything has to be measureable right? Weather it be by mass, or time its measureable. Maybe the "gap" or "nothing" is a fractal of spacetime, such as the gap from here to another planet or star. Does that mean there is a vacuum in the "void". Your statement was bold and thoughtless. To call out a person for wanting to stress points in science that are never challenged is nothing new. But what YOU are doing is just stiring the pot. I doubt you have any real knowledge be cause all you do is repeat what other people have worked to achieve and know. You fail to look out side the box or even think outside the box. This will limit you in life. I have this gut feeling you are a right wing republican who thinks his shit doesnt stink. * YOU BOB!!

Bob said...

Wow, Mitch, your feelings are the centre of the Universe! You mean I didn't have to learn all that stuff or bother to do experiments or observations, all I had to do was ask you your feelings? Gutted.

Dude, what's your feelings about magnetic monopoles?

Aaron said...

Hey Bob, you said you were going to do a bit on fractals and how they did not make sense. I would like a discussion to start up on this, because really, all I see are fractals lately, but I need negative viewpoints and some proofs as to why they are not related to anything or everything. Would be nice to see. So if you have time, or any other non-fractalizers out there, shed some light on something that seems so fundamentally simple. Thanks.

Don't worry Mitch, everybody knows their shit stinks, and everybody likes the smell of their own farts.

Bob said...

I don't remember saying anything like that.

Of course fractals make sense. What in heaven is a non-fractaliser? Fractals are a branch of mathematics, not some kind of belief system. Just learn what they are and stop making things up.

Approximate fractals appear all over the place, whenever the right kind of scale-invariant physical conditions arise.

Other geometrical arrangements also appear all over the place, such as spheres. Spheres also make sense, and approximate spheres appear whenever the physical conditions are dominated by a single point, such as the centre of mass of a star or a planet, or by minimising surface area to volume ratio such as a droplet of water.

The fractals you see are never pure fractals, just as the spheres you see are never pure spheres, because physical conditions are never totally perfect for either.

If anyone ever tells you that everything is a fractal, you can be quite sure they don't know what one is. It makes no more sense to say that everything is a fractal than it does to say that everything is a sphere.

AP said...

Mitch-

You have got to be the biggest slap happy kid on the planet, middle school students I have taught are smarter then you and your poor skills at point making....thats right you can't even make one solid point

"Think outside the box" yeah thats a new one isn't it? we have never heard that one before!

And " You must be a right wing republican"

HAHAHAHA- Man don't make me laugh, you just showed us how little you know about politics and being able to qualify Bob as a "right wing republican" is a joke....why? Because he thinks science is legitimate and magic shows are not real? Thats why he is republican?

You've got it all backwards dude. People who work in the field of science, and who have as much intellectual prowess as Bob are most definitely NOT far right wing republicans or even republicans at all for that matter.......

PLUS- Bob doesn't even live in the United States...where he lives the system is different!

Either way, because the man knows who's mathematics and cosmology he is a republican??? WTF....

you sound so stupid when you type man....go get a hobbie!

johnkastelein said...

Bob -

I just wanted to say thank you. I, like many others, found NH's ideas to be very very appealing. I wanted to know more, so I contacted my friend who is currently in graduate school for physics at a US ivy league University.

here is the core of the reaction to NH's actual formulas and paper.

"That sort of thing is suggestive, but has been known for a while. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

However, postulating along those lines doesn't seem to get us anywhere, and doesn't explain why all of our constituent particles don't evaporate into Hawking radiation.

From what I can tell, he's literally equating the strong force with gravitational attraction between planck black holes. Such a theory would not reproduce asymptotic freedom or the other features of the strong force that we do understand, such as confinement. Without mentioning anything about quarks, color charge, etc. such a theory would be a step backward."


So, Bob, thank you again for putting in the effort to refute Haramein, it saved me a lot of additional time trying to find NH's weak points myself. Your blog kept me from telling my whole family to go buy this phoney's dvd set! I still wish I could have the hours back of my life I spent watching the lectures online.

The reason why this sort of thing is destructive and immoral, is that people have to come back from believing in a very beautiful idea, and an exciting way to see yourself in context to the universe. It abuses the trust that established science has earned with the general public. To me, that is lower than low. It takes advantage of the general need of the public (USA) to feel special, connected, and spiritual.

Anonymous said...

A friend of mine played me some of Nassim's DVD's last night. I enjoyed them and had many "aha" moments while watching. Then I got to thinking and reading this blog and realized what's happening. Nassim is acting like a teacher to the lay-person. Of course if you know nothing or little of physics, higher mathimatics, etc. you will essentially be "taught" by Nassim and understandably have "aha" experiences. The trouble lies in the fact that I have no way of actually analyzing and thinking about the truth of his claims because I'm coming from a place of not understanding in the first place. To really think about the workings of the universe seriously a person would need to have years of intensive study behind them. It makes a person feel good to have "aha" understanding about deep subjects of thought and Nassim gives them that. He could be completely talking out his ass and it wouldn't be noticed because the lay person has no way of analyzing the data. He seems to be a new age feel good cult of personality!

AP said...

@ Anonymous

Speaking of the "lay-person" great way of putting what some of us have been saying time and time again to the "Nassim followers" in excellent lay-person terms! I think yours was one of the best realizations that more people should have when watching Nassim- instead they go nuts and get excited

I will admit, when I first saw all of Nassim's video, even though I had some physics conceptual knowledge and basic geological knowing, which did cause me to go "HUH" when he talked about spaceships flying in and out of volcano's and what not....but either way...he knows some General Relativity and he knows how to play with gravitational fields , or at least how to present some of that stuff along with his rotational physics and spin nonsense.....

I think a great tid bit to add on would be that in addition to understanding how having those aha moments makes a person feel good therefore they don't question him, another good thing would be if people would simply question his outrageous claims , like the most obvious one:

-A space is flying in and out of a over 6,000 kelvin, layer of the sun, not to mention also the inner layers which are several millions of degrees. But apparently the alien vehicles have a black hole core drive which allows them to withstand those temps????and densities??? gravity would be mind numbing to think about at those levels......

Thats when his work starts breaking down....he does a great job bullshitting on fractals by just taking other legitimate work and making it sound like he just found it himself, but he fails when he doesn't explain all the crazy claims about blackhole warp drive sun ships, volcano's being used a portals, OH and lets not forget!!

Nassim claims to have conducted multiple deep hypnosis psychological trauma treatment sessions, where took the patient back ...what was it...on the "correct path the earth travels" like through his Vortex orbit, and then since his vortex like orbit is different from the elliptical orbit which doesn't move in space/time, that means that he can cure the person by moving them through space time, to the point of trauma. That whole piece is so vague, makes no sense.....his explanation about how orbits really work isn't his either....if he had ANY succsess treating PTSD or any major mental illness....he could quit this fake a@@ scientist bit hes holding up, and become the kind of all cognitive and behavioral psychology making millions....my father is in the mental health field....he laughed so hard when I showed him what Nassim is claiming to have done!

Silas said...

this is actually a comment to this post: (http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/nassim-haramein-fraud-or-sage-part-2.html)

Seems that everything i post there is deleted a few seconds after they're posted. i'll just post it here:

Hey, bob.

Although I might not have the proper knowledge for a proper understanding of the posts i've just read. After all, not only I study psychology, no physics: i'm Brazilian and learned English by myself. Even then, I believe some comments might be interesting.

If you apply the Jungian theory of the archetypes to see why this man makes such claims, and, specially, why people are so eager to believe it’ll all make sense. The main point here is: these are religious values, not anything related to science. I wouldn’t be surprised if he said spirits told him this theory.

Though, as Foucault stated (don’t have the quote in English), the intellectuals, the scientists, are the ones who bring the truth. Many people accept absurd claims for the fact that they’re supposedly made by renowned scientists. They just tend to see them as prophets.

The problem is, a world lead by this class tends to be spiritually empty. Not that I believe in spirits at all: It’s kind of an emotional condition. People need meaning for living, and that is something science cannot provide. But common sense is losing the sacred grounds, the religious meanings to life, and life tends to look like an “emotional black hole”: you end up sucked by it, unable to fight it’s might. Of course I’m joking about the black hole, don’t get me wrong.

Silas said...

That need for a meaning beyond what we understand, is what Jung says in this video (7:10):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG-nxIw06Ww&feature=related

Neither a social order, nor scientific paradigm can ever suppress our need to seek a meaning. Though to many people, the old religious beliefs seem too ridiculous to believe. They need someone that can be trusted. They need some hero, some savior, redeemer, to come out of science and show them all the there is something more to give us meaning. In a society guided mostly by science and technology, you can’t just pretend things are not there, ignore the value of scientific claims. Unless, of course, you’re deeply ignorant, which is common around here.

Guess you watched contact. It will make my point a lot more clear if you have.

The work you’ve made is pretty good. It helps people who don’t have the proper knowledge, like me, to have means to question his claims. Though I didn’t really believe him. He has these eyes, like a man with blind faith. Didn’t seem like a scientist at all. Anyway, many people just can’t understand what was written: they lack the basic concepts. And they don’t really understand what he says either: it’s all about bringing back spirituality into society. It is a shame, though, that they don’t do it in a way less stupid. It creeps me out how some people just love to misuse scientific terms. Nice blog. I’ll browse it again tomorrow.

Bob said...

Thanks for your thoughts, Silas.

Sorry about the disappearing comments. I don't know why it happens. I've restored your original comment here and I'll respond to it soon.

Anonymous said...

I actually have a Ph.D. in Physics, was a NASA fellow, have 35 years in multiple science fields etc. etc. and more credentials than matter here. I really like what Bob said about say why it is right or it is wrong rather than personal attacks. Kudos to you Bob for pointing out the snake oil salesman who sucks the money out of poor idiots ready to believe in this charlatan who knows no physics! I don't charge for my lectures, and they actually have facts! A 501C3 "research institute" in Hawaii must mean something, maybe this guy is smarter than we give him credit for!

Shroomos said...

Oh wow. I just... wow.
Just thank you Bob. I can't even imagine being in your place and taking the time to explain stuff thorougly to someone when you can't even know if the person is a troll. Common sense and a little bit of reading comprehension is enough to read your blog entry and understand your points.

Anonymous said...

Any others not completely convinced he's a sham yet? He's going to be selling crystal trinkets soon.

I received this via the Resonance Project's mailing list, April 19, 2011:

Subject: Announcing The Resonance Project Arc Crystal‏

"As many of you know, Nassim Haramein developed advanced technologies over a decade ago that have the capacity to generate coherent structures in the vacuum energy field. These structures, in turn, can be induced in crystals of specific molecular alignments generating a charged field that has significantly beneficial results on biological entities.

We have begun the implementation of the first iteration ARC Crystal technology to share with the world. The crystals are cut in a precise relationship to their molecular alignment, and then undergo treatment from our facility before being mounted in a removable titanium cradle that can be snapped into a pendant, a bracelet or even a ring. Furthermore, the titanium cradle is engineered so that multiple crystals can be snapped together to produce a collective field effect with your friends and family or as a stand-alone multiple crystal geometry.

These beautiful pieces of ARC technologies come to us from a distant past to pave our way towards a sustainable future. The ARC crystals are critical tools in this moment of transition and for the development of humanities innate potential. Become one of the light bearers and don these radiant crystals. Release date to follow soon.

NEW WEBSITE LAUNCH

We are very excited to be launching our NEW WEBSITE in April. You will find this new and improved site easier to navigate, and filled with layperson and scientific papers. We will have much more interactive capability as well, allowing members to chat with each other and to post their ideas.

NEW DVD SOON TO BE AVAILABLE

April will also mark the launching of BLACK WHOLE, Nassim's new 90 minute DVD produced by Gaiam. This DVD has many exciting new animations and graphics that will help you to visualize the field and the embedded nature of reality. It will be available in many retail outlets and bookstores as well as on our website. Be sure to watch the website for the release date!

Black Whole explores the latest developments in Haramein's groundbreaking work, providing insight into the structure of space-time and a new coherent model of the universe. Using the parallels between his theory, sacred geometry and codes found in monuments and ancient documents, the film presents a new look at the reality in which we live."

Bob said...

I'm fairly satisfied that anyone with the slightest bit of sense, anyone with the slightest inkling that it's worth asking questions about the world, will have got themselves the hell away from him by now and left him surrounded by New Age crazies. Which is fine.

A new sales strategy of less pretend particle physics and more crystal trinkets and overproduced pap seems like a sensible corporate decision to me!

The further he gets from attempting to grab the attention of young people with a serious interest in the universe, the better.

AP said...

Yeah but millions of douche bags at hippie festies will be be buying this stuff catapulting Haramien into the riches and wealth that he can use to pass on a sustainability research sandbox to his son, who will most likely grow up to be either A) a failed magician, B) a failed magician's assistant or C) Nassim Haramein's assistant, which is the same as choice B.

Etienne said...

Looking at your article...

1a. Nassim Haramein didn't invent the fact that the quantum physics equations give an infinite amount of energy until it is renormalized.

1b. If you don't start from the point that "we're all one with the universe", it fails to explain the distance healing that I'm doing with tons of people.

[quote]If you have results, you don't need to fabricate an equation for them – just present the results.[/quote]
I present results.

2a. The definition of the law "For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action" clearly states "for EVERY force". Why would this apply to some forces and not others? The expansion of the Universe IS a force.

2b. Not sure what the arguments are... you just mentioned vague beliefs about things every scientists know they don't know.

2c. This has nothing to do with the content of what he says.

2d. Colliders aren't built to look for black holes, they're looking for the so-called "God particle". However, I've seen publications in a serious science magazine last summer that they were preparing experiment to try to detect the Hawking Radiation (emanations from a black hole) within atoms, within air and within water.

Bob said...

Hi Etienne, thanks for your comments.

1a. No, he didn't invent everything. He's picked up a few of the random things that anyone can find in popular science books etc. What he did do was to completely misinterpret the infinities. Which is understandable, as he doesn't understand the mathematics (he's said so himself, but it's obvious to anyone who does).

1b. I'm sure you're very talented. If you have results (as opposed to claims and subjective anecdotes), then please do present them.

2a. Two reasons. Firstly, this is the law as Newton presented it in 1687. The 20th Century has revealed numerous phenomena that depart from Newtonian mechanics, in particular at cosmological scales, at speeds approaching that of light, and at or below the atomic scale. The expansion of the universe is not in the realm in which Newton's laws operate normally. Secondly, and most importantly, the expansion of the Universe is not a force. If something is expanding, it will quite happily carry on expanding without any forces being present. Expansion is a state of relative motion, and motion does not require a force. Look at Newton's First Law.

2b. I've tried to be as clear as I can. I made three points. I'm sorry if you don't follow it. What are these "things every scientist know they don't know"?

2c. Haramein's nonsensical claims that he's on the verge of being accepted are very relevant to his appeal. But not to the content of what he says, you're right. Still, worth noting that what he claims never actually comes about.

2d. The LHC was not built to look for the "God particle" or anything specific. It was built to investigate and explore the nature of matter under certain conditions. But they are, as I said in the blog, looking for tiny black holes, which have nothing to do with anything of Haramein's. You're right, they will do this by looking for the Hawking radiation.

If Hawking radiation is a real phenomenon for all black holes, then a single Haramein's Schwarzschild Proton would constantly emit deadly gamma rays at a rate of 455 megawatts, as I explained here. This would be enough to kill anyone outright from within a distance of half a mile. From a single proton!

The fact that all conclusions derived from Haramein's work are so utterly nonsensical and unlike the the world around us surely says something about his theories, and his inability and unwillingness to investigate them for himself. I'm still waiting for someone to provide a counterexample. Let me know if you have any.

Anonymous said...

Planck's particles are special micro holes (black and white), which can explain the feeling of oneness
http://www.giulianaconforto.it/English/G.Conforto_projects.pdf
http://www.giulianaconforto.it/English/G.Conforto_curriculum_books.pdf
Rick

Anonymous said...

you should put your concerns directly to Haramein
without a debate with Haramein, even your words remain half-truths
you can not judge only by these videos it's simple
http://theresonanceproject.org/pdf/plasma_paper.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9510/9510029v1.pdf

http://www.universetoday.com/30865/is-everything-made-of-mini-black-holes/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100406172648.htm

http://www.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/scalinglaw_paper.pdf
the microtubules
of eukaryotic cells, which have a typical length of 2108cm and an estimated vibrational frequency of 109to1014 Hz lie
quite close to the line specified by the scaling law and intermediate between the stellar and atomic scales

http://vacuumsingularity.wordpress.com/holofractographic-universe/

The Schwarzschild Condition - The following are two examples, selected more or less at random, from the current literature of the use of the term "Schwarzschild condition". First we have:..
http://theresonanceproject.org/sp_manifesto.html

the microtubules
of eukaryotic cells, which have a typical length of 2108cm and an estimated vibrational frequency of 109to1014 Hz lie
quite close to the line specified by the scaling law and intermediate between the stellar and atomic scales

Rick

Bob said...

Hi Rick.

Are you trying to say that every physics article that has the word black hole in it supports Haramein's theory? I hope not - that would be very silly. Do let me know what you're trying to say, rather than throwing links at people with no attempt at explanation. I've seen these articles before, and they have nothing at all in common with Haramein's ideas.

Are you also trying to say that if you can point to something that lies on Haramein's line, then it is meaningful in some way? What would you say if I used standard 19th century electromagnetism to explain why Haramein's little selection of things lie on a line? What if I point to a whole load of other things that don't lie on his line?

Do let me know what you're trying to say.

I'm not judging him by his videos. As you can see from my blog. Very clearly. If you read it.

And I have put my 'concerns' to Haramein many times in several contexts. In reply I've been fed his P.R. blather, I've been given nonsensical answers on discussion forums and then had all my subsequent responses deleted, and I've been banned from every public forum I've asked questions on, no matter how politely and carefully and respectfully I've put them. Haramein has NO INTEREST in debating this issue. None at all.

His interest is in protecting his image, and he will not tolerate dissent. It's a very sorry sight. If you've never stood up and questioned his authority, you won't have met that side of his character.

I've said many times, if he was willing to debate without feeling the need to censor me every time I ask an inconvenient question, I'd be only too happy to do that. And he, of course, is very welcome to debate freely here. As you can see, I welcome debate and difficult questions, and do my best to respond in depth and with integrity and honesty, not only to people who agree but to people who question what I'm saying, and people who disagree strongly too.

Perhaps you could encourage Haramein to do this. I believe it's good for the soul.

Anonymous said...

There are 2 common things for all renegade scientists:
1. they all run non-profit organisation
2. they always have products to sell to you

Bob said...

Yes.... and, more to the point, your 2 things also apply to clueless delusionals who pretend to be scientists.

'Renegade scientists' usually have some understanding of the basics of their subject. They don't say the kind of idiotically naive things Haramein says. Usually they've at least tried to learn how to do science with integrity and honesty at some point in their life.

Phil said...

Hi Bob,
I myself am a student of applied physics in germany and heard of Nassim just yesterday. I just read his "paper" about the Schwarzschild-Proton and just don`t see the point of it. Further it lacks of sources for example "the meassured gamma ray emission frequency of the atomic nuculus" and occurs as the work of a dabbler, compared with the ones he published with E.A. Rauscher (although I wasn`t able to read them yet).
I consent with you in terms of his self-involvment in his presentations, but I can live with that. What`s worse is the lack of 3-D mathematics in his Schwarzschild-Proton paper. I also miss the point were it`s possible for a black hole=proton=atom to emit light and how light looks like in his theory. How is radioactive decay possible? I haven`t checked, but I bet there is now linear ratio between products and educts, neither is the phi ratio involved.
Where he has a point:
Since the days of first messuring something and explaining later are over - in theoretical physics - he came up with a new theory and the balls to present it. I personally consent with the idea of connecting everything with the very fabric of the universe=> spacetime (note that I had the thought before I heard of him);
Even if his ideas don`t work out, I think he is near the right point to start.

Now some thoughts about your questions above:
The black hole: I think it`s a term for a, let`s call it vortex, wherein a stable powerflow is warranted. I have to give you credit where he refers to life. Most proteins are nowhere near a spheric structure he see`s everywhere. But even in modern physics they are only possible, because of an equilibrium of forces.

Newton`s 3rd law: I think he refers to the vacuum energy IN the volume, not the volume itself, energy we have prof for, the casimir effect.

Either he is right or wrong, we still have the flying spaghetti monster ;)

Bob said...

Hi Phil. Thanks for your thoughts.

You're right - there is no point to it. Not in any scientific sense. The papers with Rauscher are more technical, but they're no less confused and self-contradictory.

Regarding 'where he has a point', I respect your desire to add a kind of balance, but there's really nothing in any of the points you make here. It would be nice if a balance could be struck for Haramein, but it just isn't like that.

First, you say "he came up with a new theory and the balls to present it" - this is no different to the hundreds of crackpots who present their 'theory of everything' to Michio Kaku (or any other prominent theoretician) every day.

Where's the courage in presenting your theory over and over again to New Age audiences who don't have the understanding to recognise how impossibly distant the world he's describing is from the world we observe? It's showmanship, and it's done to impress the naive and the credulous. If he had courage, he would present it to physicists, and he would publish their responses to his ideas. Of course he never will, as it would be suicidal as a business model for his institution and for his brand.

Instead he hides his discussions behind a pay wall, in a bubble of his own scientifically illiterate fans, filtered to avoid dissent.

You say "I personally consent with the idea of connecting everything with the very fabric of the universe" - surely what matters is not whether you or anyone else likes an idea, but whether it bears any relation to reality?

Besides, doesn't general relativity connect everything with the very fabric of the universe? Doesn't quantum field theory connect everything with the very fabric of the universe? Of course they do. The whole of modern physics is built on theories and ideas that connect everything with the very fabric of the universe.

You say "The black hole: I think it`s a term for a, let`s call it vortex, wherein a stable powerflow is warranted." - Haramein doesn't say what it means, he just uses terms in whatever vague way he chooses in order to impress people. I can't see that you're doing any different.

You say "Newton`s 3rd law: I think he refers to the vacuum energy IN the volume, not the volume itself, energy we have prof for, the casimir effect." - He's talking about the volume. Besides, if he were talking about vacuum energy, this STILL isn't a force! Newton's 3rd Law refers exclusively to forces.

The Casimir effect does exert a force, and it's entirely consistent with Newton's 3rd Law. So if Haramein were referring to this (and if he had the first clue what it meant, and if he were at all honest) then he wouldn't be making out that he'd discovered some inconsistency.

"Either he is right or wrong" - Phil, look, the guy is absolutely clueless. He's a complete joke. If you're a student of applied physics and still asking this question, and you're unclear as to what Newton's 3rd Law is, then something is very much amiss.

Anonymous said...

Trying to debunk someone or something so hard only proves one point, you need to prove yours. So essentially you are doing the same thing that he does and that I'm doing. Since the intellect is finite (as opposed to the mind but that's another topic) how do you intend to intellectually grasp ('scientifically' that is to you) was isn't finite? with a formula? I'll be waiting, like I'll be waiting to see the missing link between man and ape. At the end of the day, since we can't know who is right, why don't we stop trying to argue against each other and cooperate instead. You see, that's what science is to me, and not some intellectual masturbation based on a given set of laws interpreted by your brain as world construct. Try to ponder on the nature of human existence and come back to physics. Then maybe I'll read your entire blog, because as for now it is pointless to me to read someone saynig that someone else is wrong about something that both do not actually know. Take care and remember, science is what is it, not what you think it is or what your scientific mentor thinks it is. It is not a human thing, it is a thing some humans use to experience the universe. Most don't do it that way yet have a life arguably as meaningful as yours. What is your praised scientific understanding in the big scheme of things? technology? you mean nuclear power plants and bombs? Because it we mean technology as in it makes our lives better I'm not sure what your definition of better is in terms of human existence. Your god newton had a god himself, the christian god ;)

Anonymous said...

I Can't believe how many people, even some of them who are capable of writing and reading this blog, constantly recognize they haven't even read it in its entirity. This "I'll read your blog when you blah blah blah" thing sucks. To have a conversation or a healthy debate, you have to listen to the other side. If you don't, you are just a troll even if you disguise yourself as someone kind. Well good people, DO read the blog and maybe I'll be the one who cares about what you have to say.
And again, please, stick to the physics. Wether you like it or not, Bob (and some others who've taken the time and kindness to explain the same things to me personally and in other forums) has proved Nassim wrong in what it's suposed to be his main field of expertise, he has proved the guy doesn't have a clue about physics, and he has done it many times with a formidable patience. Just read this blog. Enough philosophy. I love philosophy, but this is not the place. Don't leave us with the impression you are just plain ignorants, I'm sure you all are better than this. Much love to you all.

Dan.

Bob said...

Hi Anonymous. Thanks for your comment.

Let me state something I believe in, and see if it helps.

I believe that it's positive, creative, generous-spirited and essentially human in the very best sense to explore, to look at and listen to and find out about this wonderful existence we find ourselves in.

I believe that we owe it to each other to share what we find, and to be honest about what we find, and with each other generally.

I understand that some people, perhaps like yourself, may believe that we can't know whether anything or anyone is right. But let me put a question to you:

Imagine you wanted to know what time your local store opened. One friend said they were passing by that way anyway, and they'd look at the times on the door. A second friend, who has never even been to the store, says "no, don't listen to that guy; I had a vision! I'll tell you what they are."

They two friends give you conflicting opening times. Are you really saying that "since we can't know who is right, why don't they stop trying to argue against each other and cooperate"?

Honestly?

For me, the guy who bothers to go and look is the guy I would trust.

If there was only the guy with the visions, then I'd be intrigued, and I'd go and see if he was right. If I did that, and he was wrong, then I would feel it was appropriate to tell him.

If he insisted that he was right and went around telling everyone, I'd probably feel it was helpful to let them know what was going on.

Haramein is the guy who didn't bother to look. There is nothing in Haramein's catalogue of work that is genuine, my friend. Some people do look at the things he's talking about, and they know perfectly well that he's wrong. And very confused. He's claiming to talk about scientific concepts, and encouraging others to promote him as an authority. It is a lie.

And yes I can say this with certainty, because I've bothered to look at what he's done, and because (unlike Haramein) I've spent my life bothering to look at the world, and at the work of others who have done so.

I've also bothered to explain why I think this, and why I'm writing about it, and I've bothered to respond to comments from people who disagree with what I'm saying, because (unlike Haramein) I think all of these things are positive and worthwhile.

And (unlike Haramein) I strive to the best of my ability to be honest about what I understand and what I do not understand.

If you had bothered to look at my blog, you might have appreciated what I was trying to do. Instead of looking at what I've written, you've just thrown out your opinions and your prejudices. You tell me that I never ponder the nature of human existence. You even tell me that I'm praising nuclear weapons! Do you not realise that you're just making this up?

If you'd rather hold onto your own opinionated fantasy versions of things then I guess that's your choice. But for heaven's sake, please don't try to tell me that such an attitude is somehow more human or more meaningful than looking at the world and finding things out before you express your opinions. I don't know how anyone could think that.

Enough about whether or not I have the right to try to point out a fraud. If you have any reason to disagree with anything I've actually said, do let me know. I am interested.

James Blanchette said...

Hmm , I am still waiting for a person who works in Physics to really respond to this. I am not one however I have seen how the scientific community acts and responds. All things aside we know nothing about physics as a whole. All of it is just a theory. The was a time when Einstein was ridiculed for his theories and it took Eddington to cast some sort of proof on them. I am not even saying that Nassim is right, I am just saying that I have yet to see anyone prove him wrong. So Bob you need to pop up your Physics degrees here and then present it all with the math that proves your version.
You have stated that it is simple for us to knock off a single proton. I will assume that is done in an accelerator. What are the actual forces in play, what force does it strike to knock it off? Not just a simple little bump, when you move something at a great speed and it hits something it can be expressed as a number.
Newtons laws are subject to change because they are not laws at all merely theories that we have accepted. Some of Newtons theories were pushed aside when Einsteins took over.
Nothing is cut and dry

Bob said...

Hi James.

You'll understand that the vast majority of people who work in physics, people like Haramein are about as interesting as used dishwater. Why bother with the opinions of an incompetent, pretentious idiot and his obscure little following? What most people here seem to underestimate is how immediately blatantly obvious it is that he is clueless, not to mention how many other crackpots are out there, talking out of their arses.

My interest is not a physics interest, it's more of a sociological fascination... and it's a chance to attempt to discuss scientific ideas with a bunch of folk who I normally don't come into contact with, which is fun.

Nevertheless, there have been a few comments from people with apparently some expertise in physics, for example these: #1, #2 (2 comments), and #3.

There are also comments on Haramein's work and my response to it on other blogs and forums, for example baut, jref, and... there were others but I can't find them. Someone's started a discussion thread on physicsforums - that might be a fun one to watch.

The only physicist of note who I've heard mentioning him is Phil Plait, who gives his opinion in this podcast (if you wind forwards to 50:00).

I think that's enough for you to check out. If you know of any physicists expressing opposing views, let me know! That would be fun. And a bit surreal.

Anyway, getting back to your comment, you say "All things aside we know nothing about physics as a whole." Are you serious? I'm not sure what to say to that - it's a truly ridiculous thing to say.

Sometimes I think people honestly believe that if they don't know about physics themselves, that means nobody else does. I don't get it.

I've presented my reasoning in plenty of detail on the seven blog posts about Haramein, and there's enough to prove that the guy a fake and all his theories are bull many times over. I don't really understand what the point would be of going into more technical detail at the request of someone who doesn't have the background to follow it. I'm trying to be as helpful as I can, and if you have any specific question on any of the details or any difficulties with any part of my reasoning in particular, I'll happily explain and discuss in as much detail as you like, but I'm not going to waffle away in a language you don't understand in order to impress you. That would be silly.

Bob said...

Re knocking protons off nuclei - some nuclei emit them spontaneously, some can be removed by irradiating with radioactivity, or specific proton-emission events can be tested in small accelerators. The strong nuclear force holds the proton in the nucleus, and if the energy provided by an incident particle is large enough, a proton can leave the nucleus. The physics of these events is extremely well understood now.

Regarding Newton's theories, I disagree. They were not pushed aside. They are still as good as they were in Newton's day, for the things that Newton used them for and tested them on, and to the accuracy that he intended. They are not wrong. All that's happened is we've found their limits, and we've had to discover new explanations for what happens beyond those limits.

You're right, nothing is cut and dry. Nobody's saying it is. But there are some things that you can be absolutely sure of. If a theory suggests things that are massively different from what is observed in the real world, and adds nothing at all in terms of predictions or insight into reality, it will ALWAYS be rejected as worthless by physicists.

It's that simple.
There are no exceptions.

And Haramein's theories do exactly that.

Bob said...

Oh, the physicsforums link I provided was to a thread that's been removed - almost as soon as it appeared.

There was also an older one on there, which also seems to have been removed, unfortunately. It consisted of two posts: someone asking about Haramein, followed by an admin saying "why are you asking about that on here, this is a physics forum." And that was the end of the thread.

You get the idea.

James Blanchette said...

Ok let me put it to you Bob in another way
In the GRAND SCHEME of THINGS our knowledge on everything is limited. It does not only include physics.
And by the way this is Nassim's response to you.
http://theresonanceproject.org/bob.html
you can check it out if you like
As for Newton, Eddington helped disprove one of the theories. There was a certain problem with the orbit of Mercury and because thy did not know why , they ignored it. Einsteins equations could and did account for it.
Now before you assume Bob that I have no knowledge, understand this. There is a string of initials before and after my name. Whether Nassim is right or wrong makes no difference to me what so ever.
Explaining to me how they knock something off does not answer the question does it. I already know how it is done. I wanted the math for it that will tell us the exact force required because I also know that there is an equation that will give us the number.
No I am not a physicist but I suspect that neither are you.
You have to remember first off that it is all theoretical, most science is. Our limitations are what we actually know and can prove and then we add theories to that.
String theory is not Proven
M Theory is not proven
We understand some of the effects but we really do not know why.
We do not know why an atom is stable , what gravity truly is , we search for these answers.
The vast majority of everything around us is unknown, we have theories for it.
Some facts for you
Socrates was put to death for teaching his ideas . We follow his teaching and have schools. There is not one word of his that can be found that he has written down, all we have is his students accounts like Plato and others.
Knowledge is always been challenged, at one point the earth was flat and they could prove it.
Now like I said he could be right or wrong but it seems that he believes it.
The real problem that we face is not someone with a new idea, it is a lack of ideas. People are no longer taught to think and for sure not to think for themselves. The schooling systems are now only there to regurgitate the same thing over and over. You are not taught to use both sides of your brain , you are not taught to question, merely repeat the facts you were given. It is the same thing that kept the world flat.
Socrates fought for your right to question everything.
It is good that you are questioning a theory but you have to take it one step further and create your own. Failing to do that just makes you a flat earther.
You do not like his theory give me a better one and I will examine it to the fullest extent that I am capable of.
By the way , dealing in raw science our magnetic field seems to be breaking down and predictions are that in about 800 years it will be down to zero. there is a lot of science as to why and the probable cause but no solution on how to fix it. That is what I mean when I say they we know virtually nothing in the scheme of things.
By the way I have never used my titles for anything , I am more content to be an artist and explore philosophy

Bob said...

I don't really care what you suspect, my friend.

I've answered your questions in my comment above and in my blog. I can see you're here to bash, not to discuss. If you want to come to your own conclusions rather than study the subject or discuss it open-mindedly with others who have, then that's your own lookout. As I've said before here, the word for that, whether you like it or not, is prejudice, and it isn't welcome here.

Let me know if you actually want to discuss anything in Haramein's theory or anything I've said.

Bob said...

It's a bit silly throwing Haramein's ridiculous response to my blog at me, given that I've already taken it apart above. Here's a link for anyone who's actually interested in reading and thinking about what I'm saying before spouting opinions on it.

James Blanchette said...

Hmm so it seems you do not really like someone disagreeing with you at all. It is ok for you to bash someone. You have not answered the questions asked.
It is not to bash you, I think you are doing a fine job of that on your own.
I have noticed how you treat people with an opposing view point , you are rude and that seems to be ok with you.
You claim to have studied the subject but you have not included everything , just the parts you thought you could have an answer for.
There is no prejudice here on my part but there seems to be on yours because I am discussing.
If you do not have a better theory that is fine, all I m saying is that he has a right to his theory , it is his and science will at some point either disagree with him and prove he is wrong or prove him right.
As well perhaps he catches the attention of someone else and they look at his theories and decide that hmmm that part is completely wrong but that, if we tweak it will create a brand new theory.
All I know is that for me, when I look at his theories, I lack the necessary understanding of physics to either agree or not agree , it is just one more to add to the pile.

Bob said...

No, I'm very happy for someone to disagree. Like I said, if you have any comments relating to anything I've actually said, or anything relating to anything Haramein's theories, I'd be interested in that. What I don't care for is you throwing your random uninformed opinions at me.

If you're referring to your "number" for "knocking a proton off", you'll find one in the link I just gave you, in my post about Haramein's response. Perhaps that's the number you wanted. It's hard to tell what you wanted, as you didn't actually ask a question.

If I asked you how long it would take to climb a mountain, and demanded the exact answer, how would you respond? You haven't even said what mountain you're talking about.

You ask me if I have a better theory. For what? If you mean for the nature of a proton, then of course! It's not mine - I can't claim to have made it up - but I'm not wading around in the dark making pronouncements on things I don't understand. That's not something I do.

Haramein has a right to his theory, yes. But it's bullshit. He doesn't have a right to not have people say it's bullshit.

As I said, add it to your "pile" if that's your choice. If you actually cared about whether it was true or not, you'd either study the subject sufficiently until you had enough understanding to see for yourself, or you'd ask around people who have, and see if it's as blatantly obvious as I'm saying it is.

James Blanchette said...

Bob the question that you never answered dealt with your suggestion that you simply give a proton a nudge and it falls right off. I have watched information on the CERN project and when it takes a mass amount of energy to slam two things into one another, I can't qualify it as a nudge. I looked through what you had replied and I did not see any link to get that equation. One of the links to a forum was broken and did not return a result
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3366751#post3366751

If you want physicists with opposing views , that all depends on the subject or theory. There is opposition everywhere and what it all so hard to sort out. Not everything that Nassim has said do I think is correct, there are some parts that are worth looking into from other sources and I do that. Perhaps one day I will have enough information to balance the perceived and the truth, until then I will have to continue looking at everything.
I still have problems with E=MC squared because I don't think it is right , I think it is close. I can't prove that , all i know that in current science it seems to make sense.
Whether he is just a hack or not is not relevant, people are talking and exploring ideas. You created an entire Blog response to it, the passion has been lit.
You should know that M Theory has been out for a little while and has not gotten even close to the response that he has. Even if he has made the whole thing up and is full of bullshit , his contribution will still be that he lit the fire. People are asking questions, people are attempting to find the truth
That is not a bad thing.
One of the things that attracted me was the triangle placement on the planets and the disturbances on those lines, this of course may not be his work and the work of someone else but the geometry is interesting and I will be looking more into that.

Bob said...

Yes, I spotted the physics forum link had disappeared, and I let you know.

You're STILL not asking a question (what are you even asking about protons being knocked off?), and you're still ignoring what I said. So let me try to guess what question you're thinking of. (What else can I do?)

You want to know how much force it takes to dislodge a proton, presumably from a nucleus. I have answered in terms of the amount of energy it takes, because I think that is the more relevant and useful quantity. The energy required depends on which nucleus you're talking about. But for no nucleus is it less than 3.2 picojoules, as I explained in this section of the link I already gave you. I also explained exactly how I had calculated that number (which relates to the Helium nucleus) and why. I also compared it directly with the value from Haramein's theory.

3.2 picojoules (or 20MeV) of kinetic energy is a very very small amount, far too small for human senses to detect. The number from Haramein's theory is half the amount it would take to eject the moon from its orbit.

I hope that is helpful.

You don't think E=mc2 is right? Stop being an opinionated nutcase and get real.

And you think M theory has had less response than Haramein? Man, you're in some freaky bubble!

Grow up and learn not to make pronouncements on things you don't understand. It's foolish, immature and it annoys the bejesus out of people.

No more. Ok?

James Blanchette said...

Ok you finally answered the question.
What did we have before Einsteins famous E=MC2
Like it or not that equation is a theory and is yet to be proven, I am waiting for the proof.
As for popular , you have to look at in terms of the masses and not just because you know about it.
You personally are responsible for upping his popularity because you really don't think everybody is just going to take your word for your conclusions do you?

Bob said...

Correction of typo: in previous comment I meant to say "for no nucleus is it more than 3.2 picojoules", not less.

Helium-4 has the highest proton separation energy of all nuclei - 3.2pJ is the figure for helium-4.

Re E=mc2, principles of physics don't have proofs, they have evidence. Every single piece of evidence gathered in the last 100 years supports it, and nothing disputes it despite a century of the world's most creative thinkers and experimentalists trying everything they possibly could to catch it out. That's how physics works. It's about comparing ideas with the real world. Proofs are used in mathematics, not physics.

Learn about it. It's interesting.

There is no measure at all, other than in your silly head, by which Haramein could be said to be more popular or influential or talked-about than M theory.

And I am not responsible for his popularity. It's very sweet of you to say so, but I think you'll find that it's his massive self-publicity, and not some obscure blog.

Of course I don't think people will just take my word. People who are capable of considering reasoning and evidence will follow what I've said, follow it up with their own investigations, and stay the hell away from him.

People who think that whatever they happen to like the sound of must be true, and don't give a crap about reasoning or evidence, will of course ignore what I say and follow the smiley dude on youtube. No secret about that. 'Twas ever thus.

James Blanchette said...

Well Bob you may have to google the debate about it
here is one link
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080924094459AAd6Mxw
E=MC2 is being debated as all theory should be and there are problems with it in M theory according to Hawkings.
That is always been the problem with science , it is not stable , it is ever changing and evolving. When you have done your calculations using a theory to prove another theory you assume that the first theory is correct. If the first theory is not correct or contains errors your results are now invalid. Some scientists have noted that the speed of light is not constant as thought but has variations in speed
I personally have not located the research yet , but I am looking

wendy said...

(Part one of three.)

Hi James,

1. In your last post, you said "... you may have to google the debate about it
here is one link
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080924094459AAd6Mxw
E=MC2 is being debated as all theory should be and there are problems with it in M theory according to Hawkings."

I took a look at this short article and discovered that it doesn't actually say anything very concrete or useful. It makes a few vague claims about 'problems' and 'doubts' which have been expressed by 'some scientists' concerning Einstein's theories, but none of these scientists are named, so I can't look any further to find out what their arguments or evidence are. On the particular page you have linked to not even the author is named!

As evidence of an important level of debate concerning the validity Einstein's theories, it doesn't amount to much. Any serious debate would have to, at the very least, name its sources, just as for any form of journalism.

Putting this particular article aside for the moment, there is, as you say, a stack of 'debate' on the web about Einstein's theories, but it mostly seems to boil down to crackpots and vague philosophizers.

Of course this (a lack of qualifications, and/or the existence of an axe to grind) doesn't *prove* that they are all wrong, but try to be at least as wary of what they say as you seem to be of what 'mainstream' scientists are saying!

Moving along now to what 'mainstream' scientists say, there is, and always has been, a well-established discussion about the probability that Einstein's theories are, not actually wrong, but incomplete.


For any given theory to be incomplete, (as opposed to just-plain-wrong), is unsurprising - in fact its pretty much par-for-the-course these days. We *know* we don't have all the answers, so therefore our theories *must* be incomplete in some respects.

Newton's theories were incomplete, but not wrong. People often assume that they were 'wrong', but this is not so. They were, and are, perfectly correct within the domain of measurement that they were able to apply back then. This means fairly slow speeds, and fairly large sizes.

Once we started dealing with phenomena involving faster speeds, we discovered that Newton's 'laws' started io break down, and we had to develop relativity.

In a similar manner, once we started to deal with things that were very small, again, Newton's laws broke down, this time in a different way, and we had to develop quantum mechanics.

In the same way, it is likely that at some stage the 'laws' of relativity will break down. Already we know there are problems, as we have not found a way to combine gravitation with the other forces. This is not exactly a breakdown of the kind that happened to Newton's laws at high speeds, but it *is* an indication that Relativity is not going to be the 'final theory' of everything.

But when a more encompassing theory does come along, that won't mean that relativity was 'wrong', any more than Newton's laws are 'wrong'. These older theories are still correct when used within the appropriate domain of applicability.

This is somewhat different to some kinds of progress in science, where we do actually change from one theory which is 'totally wrong' to a new one.

wendy said...

(Part two of three.)

For instance, the old theory of 'spontaneous generation', which held that the life could appear spontaneously, for instance in a mouldy piece of bread or a cauldron of broth cooling on a stove, without the need for a seed or egg or 'parent' for it to grow from, was totally wrong (you can read more about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation).

Anyway, this particular theory was eventually disproved experimentally (Pasteur is the most famous name associated with this disproof). We now know that when something starts growing, there was always some tiny seed or egg or bacterium from whence it began, it's just that these are often too small to see with the naked eye(*).

We don't now say that the older theory was 'correct in a certain domain', and that the newer one is correct in a larger domain. We say the older theory was just wrong, period.

So, there are (at least) two ways for science to change and move forward. One is the complete destruction of the old theories. The new theory completely replaces the old. The other is an enlargement. The old theory still applies, but is enlarged to cover an expanded domain of phenomena.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make, (somewhat long-windedly!) is that it now appears very unlikely that relativity will undergo a change of the first type, ie be shown to be completely and utterly 'wrong'. What instead will happen is that it will be in some way enlarged, expanded into a new theory which still explains all the same results in the existing domain of experiment, but which also makes concrete and correct predictions in some new area.

(*) Note that this is separate from the question of how life began in the first place. Both theories in this instance were talking about how life comes about and renews itself in a new generation as an every-day event, not about the ultimate origin of life

wendy said...

(Part three of three.)

2. In an earlier post, you said:

"What did we have before Einsteins famous E=MC2 Like it or not that equation is a theory and is yet to be proven, I am waiting for the proof."



A scientific theory generally will not have a single 'proof' in the way that a mathematical theorem might.

Instead, there may be a whole range of interconnected experimental results which are in some way explained by the theory.

If this is the case, and if we have no other theory which explains the same results, then we might describe this set of results as a 'proof' of the theory, but this is really usually just a short-hand for a pretty complex web of evidence and analysis.

Having said that, though, there are sometimes certain pivotal 'key experiments' which were so clear and specific that we talk about them as having 'proved' a certain theory.

For Einstein's E=mc^2 equation, there are a number of things which could be taken to be an experimental 'proof' of the validity of the equation.

If you do an energy-accounting of a nuclear reaction, such as those in our sun, in a nuclear reactor, or a nuclear weapon, (http://science.jrank.org/pages/5797/Relativity-Special-Experimental-verification.html), the results you get will be congruent with those predicted by the E= mc^2 equation.

Of course this does not mean that the equation is the *only* equation that could possibly correctly predict these results - perhaps there could be another equation, based on a different theory, which predicts the same results?

On this topic I can say that, so far, no-one has been able to convincingly find such an alternative theory, in spite of a large amount of effort and debate. But that doesn't mean that we never will.

In fact, as discussed above, we now know that all of our current theories, including relativity, almost inevitably *will* break down at some stage. But this does not mean that they are 'wrong', merely incomplete. I discussed this distinction a little more above.

So, back to concrete examples. Thus far I've mentioned nuclear reaction energy-accounting as experimental evidence for the E=mc^2 formula.

I'll add to this a phenomenon that was not observed until a couple of decades after the theory was first published (theory 1905, new phenomena 1932) such as pair-production. This is where a photon 'turns into' an electron-positron pair. The experimentally observed energy-accounting in this process is also congruent with E=mc^2.

Next, the E=mc^2 formula is intimately tied to a particular model of space, time, and kinematics, namely 'special relativity.' Thus, experimental tests of special relativity are also a form of evidence for E=mc^2.

Again, there are literally hundreds of different experimental results supporting special relativity, so I'll only mention a couple - muon lifetimes (you can google this) and observed time-dilation - as observed in 1971 using atomic-clocks flown on jet-planes (http://science.jrank.org/pages/5797/Relativity-Special-Experimental-verification.html)

wendy said...

(Part four of three. Ok, so I clearly can't count! I do however have a degree in physics - so you MUST BELIEVE WHAT I SAY!)

Finally, for a very recent, very high-precision experiment in this area, see the 2005 Nature article I've excerpted below (and note that, unlike the article you linked to , it names all its authors and has a list of references!)

"
World Year of Physics: A direct test of E=mc2
---------------------------------------------
Simon Rainville, James K. Thompson1, Edmund G. Myers, John M. Brown, Maynard S. Dewey, Ernest G. Kessler, Jr, Richard D. Deslattes, Hans G. Börner, Michael Jentschel, Paolo Mutti & David E. Pritchard


One of the most striking predictions of Einstein's special theory of relativity is also perhaps the best known formula in all of science: E=mc 2. If this equation were found to be even slightly incorrect, the impact would be enormous — given the degree to which special relativity is woven into the theoretical fabric of modern physics and into everyday applications such as global positioning systems. Here we test this mass–energy relationship directly by combining very accurate measurements of atomic-mass difference, m, and of -ray wavelengths to determine E, the nuclear binding energy, for isotopes of silicon and sulphur. Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1-mc 2/E=(-1.44.4)10-7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described. "

(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/abs/4381096a.html)


HTH

Wendy :)

Bob said...

James, that's not a debate about E=mc2, it's some buffoon talking crap, and probably signing in with a different name to say how awesome his own crap is. (Do you know the meaning of gullible?)

"Every year millions of students are taught this theory without a critical analysis of Relativity" - big fat wrongo. At least not anywhere I've studied or taught. That would be criminal neglect on a physics course.

Re M-theory, yes of course there are problems with it.

There's a difference between a viable theory put forward by people who know what they're talking about which is worth investigating and developing, and a pile of crap. In science it's a matter of urgency to be willing and able to tell the difference.

Hey Wendy! Nice to have you back! If only James actually read anything anyone says to him, and if only he would engage his mind to consider what's being said… let's see...

James Blanchette said...

you know bob you have the most closed mind I have ever encountered and when you are not winning you choose to insult , you do not do any real research into anything just run your mouth off
The are issues with Einsteins theories
As far as I can tell you really don't know shit you simply copy and paste what other people have said including their. equations You are dominated by your left brain that I don't think the right has fired in years.

You are willing to put anyone down that does not agree with and insult those that don't.
Unfortunately I have read your entire blog , your math doesn't apply because you don't understand it not because it may be right.
You are just a petty individual and I feel sorry for you

Bob said...

Ah, James. You're not the first to stamp their little feet and scream at me because they don't like what I'm saying.

When you can actually find something specific - ANYTHING - that I've said about Haramein and his work, and show me what is incorrect or mistaken about it; or when you can find something specific that Haramein has said and show me what truth there is in it that I have failed to recognise, then please do.

I've explained in detail a whole load of things that are absolutely false about his work. If you're unable to find anything I've said that's actually not true and explain why it's not true, then the only possible conclusion is that you're unable to admit that you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, but you just want to have a tantrum on my comments page because you Just Don't Like It.

Be my guest.

James Blanchette said...

Hmmm Bob was is the screaming and the stamping of feet?? just another tactic on your part to demonstrate you are right at all costs. Now if you remember , right from the beginning I said that was he was right or not was not important. If I am willing to question Einstein who continued to work on his theories until he because he thought their could be more to it, I am willing to questions Nassim and you. Just because you wrote down a few equations does not make you right. It only gives you a view point. Nassim claims he is right by doing the very same thing you are doing, putting up a few equations.
This is the difference, perhaps Nassim will be remembered as a fool because his theory fell apart and ended up on the scrap heap. He has the courage and stand up and state he has an idea.Einstein said that imagination is the most important thing.
You can't make reference to who Nassims audience is because you were never there and you have not interviewed those that have attended.
You make reference to the math for particles and state perhaps what you have been taught , but once again those are based on theories and if the theories fall apart so do the equations.
Original thought is hard to come by and most people just don't have any original thoughts , the regurgitate what has been presented to them.
I will defend Nassims right to make a fool out of himself the very same way I will defend your right to make a fool out of your self.
You have not ripped his entire theory to shreds , only the parts of it that you felt you could.
I realize that Nassim is either not presenting his math correctly or his math is simple wrong.
I also remember that String theory was the way to go not too long ago until that fell apart.
The guys videos you said were ok and his theories promising has hit major roadblocks and his theory is now falling apart.
M Theory is now the current fore runner and will be until part of it collapses and we will perhaps be looking at P theory or J theory or some other equivalent.
The point is always simple, science marches on and those that stumble along the way are soon forgotten.
Without imagination and people coming to bizarre conclusions we would still be trying to light our fires from trees struck by lightning. Yes there has been a lot of errors on the way and in the future we will continue to be error bound in our attempts to understand everything.
If his theory falls apart and that is probable you can rest assured that he will go out with little or no fan fare.
The fact that you have wasted so much of your time on some else dictates that you really have nothing better to do.
It seems that I have read that you have had some teaching in particle physics and if that is the case perhaps you can do something with that. I would happily read conclusions that you have derived from your own research.
Spending 25 years on a mountain should have imparted a sense of sereneness or perhaps wisdom in the dealings of the mind.
Another area you may want to pursue.
What I was taught was that until you have a right to an opinion you must look at it from every possible angle and condition you can think of. After that ask a few hundred people because it is possible you have missed or overlooked something.
You can teach someone to think but it is the hardest job in the world
Best of luck in your endeavors
ps from some of what I have been reading it seems that the speed of light may not be as constant as thought. It is harder to get research papers these days because alas we count on google.
In the old days I could use a gopher and extract directly from universities and such. Very few papers make it to google.

Bob said...

"What I was taught was that until you have a right to an opinion you must look at it from every possible angle and condition you can think of. After that ask a few hundred people because it is possible you have missed or overlooked something." - yes - I entirely agree, that's why I've put in so much work on this, and asked so many times for input regarding the content (rather than opinions regarding what people imagine my intentions to be, which are always very dull). I wouldn't want to misunderstand anything or get anything wrong.

"The fact that you have wasted so much of your time on some else dictates that you really have nothing better to do." - hmm, dude, but you just said...

Heh, never mind.

Like I said, if you can point out and explain anything I've said about Haramein and his theories that is wrong, or even anything Haramein has ever put forward that is correct, that would be interesting.

If you can't, then you can't. Simple as that.

James Blanchette said...

I think your misconception is this
You put forth your opinion and sought to have it validated.
I said that before you can have an opinion you must outsource it , not after the fact.

As to your math I will have to forward it to someone whose back ground is in that field.
My fields don't include it as I have already said.
I prefer bacteria and micro biology , far easier to understand then what makes a star tick.
Perhaps soon as you keep suggesting you can put this all behind you and get on to something more productive.

Bob said...

"I said that before you can have an opinion you must outsource it "Yes, I did that James. I didn't just throw opinions at the world. But obviously when I was doing that, it wasn't public.

Also, just because all you see of me is an occasional bit of writing on a blog every few days, that doesn't mean that's all I do. It doesn't take me eight hours to write every comment. So you don't need worry so much about me being productive elsewhere.

Things actually do happen other than what you see. You do realise that, don't you...

James Blanchette said...

Well Bob , thanks for the clarification on the outsource , that is reassuring to know.

You are probably as busy as I am as my time gets divided radically amongst all the things that I do. I am writing a book, I have noticed that you popped on by my website so u are also aware I paint.
Never retire , you may find out that you run out of time. I don't have the years left to study all of theoretical physics so i will have to be content with the bits and pieces i know

Good luck in your future endeavors

Bob said...

Thanks James, and good luck with the painting and your book.

Also, I tried studying biology once, and microbiology to me looks far more complex than astrophysics and particle theories. It's good to learn new things and to try out new skills, but I'm happy to leave the big decisions in other subjects to the people who devote their lives to them, so I'd never dare argue with a microbiologist.

And I'd definitely never argue with an artist. I wouldn't know how. (Unless the artist makes claims about it being 'quantum' or something, then it's open season!)

All the best.

wendy said...

Bob wrote: "Hey Wendy! Nice to have you back!"


Nice to be back!

I sometimes like to relax by, y'know, writing overly-long blog comments touching on issues surrounding the ontology and epistemology of modern physics!

wendy said...

Hi again James!

Just a couple of points of clarification on your description of recent events on theoretical physics. I'll be referring to your quote:

"I also remember that String theory was the way to go not too long ago until that fell apart.
The guys videos you said were ok and his theories promising has hit major roadblocks and his theory is now falling apart.
M Theory is now the current fore runner and will be until part of it collapses and we will perhaps be looking at P theory or J theory or some other equivalent."

1. String theory was never a confirmed model. It has always been a speculative idea. It can't really be said to have 'fallen apart' since it was never really properly 'together' (ie analytically complete and experimentally verified) in the first place.

2. M-theory is just a particular version of string theory, so it makes no sense to say that string theory has been replaced by M-theory.

3. What *has* happened over the last few years, and what you might be referring to, is that a lot of physicists have gotten 'fed up' with working on string theory, or with the large amount of attention and funding that string-theory (and closely related models) was getting. More and more physicists began turning to alternative ideas, and also to voice their concerns.

This is all to the good, but it is not the same as saying 'every body believed string theory and now they have changed their minds and they don't believe it any more, so therefore this is an example of the way in which scientific opinion changes with the way the wind blows'). No one has ever claimed that string theory was a done and dusted, 'proven' model.

In fact one of the big problems with string theory is that it makes no currently testable predictions. This is not the same as an 'unfalsifiable' theory, which is one that makes no testable predictions whatsoever. String theory makes predictions which are will in principle be testable one day. But they are not testable now, so we can't tell if it is anywhere near the truth.

A number of physicists have felt that even though it will be a long time before we can do the tests, it is still worth developing the purely analytical aspects of the theory now, so that when we are experimentally able to begin testing, we will already have a very good grasp of the theory and will know exactly what we are looking for. They also argue that it is not a waste of time in any sense, since much of the maths in string theory is also applicable to other more 'everyday' areas (such as condensed matter physics), so that there is an immediate practical pay-off as well as the possible future pay-off.

Anyway, to sum up, basically the changes in how people are feeling about string theory have nothing to do with them previously thinking that it was 'right' and 'the only way to go', and now thinking that it is 'wrong' and 'definitely not the way to go'. No one in the field ever felt that it was anywhere near to being proven correct, so they can't have changed their minds to now think it is 'wrong'. What has changed is just attitudes about what it is worth spending time on at this particular historical juncture.

Wendy :)

James Blanchette said...

Wendy

That point was brought up to describe the conditions of theories themselves and not the actual theories.
Science is supposed to be a progressive discipline that rules out and rules in. Theories are always just a theory until proven otherwise. Prove is generally from experimentation and observation and then duplication of results.
When you isolate bacteria you are concerned with two things , what does it eat and what does it excrete. Then then in general terms will give you the usefulness of that particular strain. ( you are concerned with a lot more then just that however it is an example).
For thousands of years we have progressed from one theory to the next as our understanding and tools increase. Therefore the premise is that all theories are subject to change.

Bob said...

Part of this progression is that some theories are so concretely established within their field of applicability that they can be described as laws. General relativity is one. Newton's Laws are another.

String theory is still very much alive and holds promise, but remains speculative.

There are thousands of viable theories being investigated all over the world, from modest refinements to the Standard Model all the way to the craziest speculations about multiple nested many-dimensional universes. Viable is the key word - meaning they are internally consistent and not contradicted by observations.

There are also thousands of fruitloops and/or conmen claiming to have theories who rely on their supporters not understanding the meaning of viable. Scientists don't go near them, and there are extremely good reasons why. That is what this post is about.

darrbev said...

learn how to read a science paper, the first section of the swartzchild proton paper makes the most stupid dumb mistake i ever saw, and i'm only an amateur. darrbev@netscape.net and I'll explain in detail. but basically any one who thinks 1 plank volume equals 1 plank mass knows nothing about the basics of physics. and later, to say 8"10^7 is close to 7"10^8 shows no understanding whatsoever of orders of magnitude

Bob said...

I don't think he says one Planck volume equals one Planck mass. He says all sorts of crap, but he doesn't say that. Not sure what you meant about orders of magnitude either. Where are you looking?

Michael said...

Physics is a chain reaction, a train of thoughts, that grow in us through perception, then comes rationalization, any kind, but in this order. Your perception on Haramein's work is clearly distorted, cause you are not focussing on his work, you are focussing on the person. No matter how many statements you wrote to discredit his thoughts, the expert reader what really gets is your hate and envy towards the person. Wrong perception inside out. Distorted motivations lead you to lose all credit.

wendy said...

Hi Michael, :)

I'm not sure why you say that Bob is not focussing on Haramein's work.

If you read through Bob's analysis you'll see there is plenty there about Haramein's work.

Also, and this is purely my own opinion, not necessarily Bob's or any one else's, but I very much doubt that Bob feels envious towards Haramein. Why should anyone feel envious towards someone that they feel is, at best, misguided and incorrect, and at worst, a charlatan and a fraud?

d.. said...

Hi Michael,
I think you haven't read Bob's blog. All he has done is focus on Haramenin's paper and videos. In the heat of the debate, he may have said something out of line (I don't believe it, but I understand you could think it) but he's always agreed to recognize it. I don't know how can you say anyone here hates the guy, in fact we have lots of fun thanks to him, in a way that I'm even beginning to like his shirts! ;)
I don't love Bob either, more than I can love any other human being that thinks and tries to make people think in a creative way. This is not about supporting a football team or who do you like the better or something like that, this is just about a beautiful subject that we call physics, this is about observing nature and describing it. No more, no less.

If I may, I'd like to ask you to answer this next questions; Does Nassim Haramein...

1. ask for independent confirmation of the facts he's explaining?

2. encourage substantive debate on the evidence he's presenting by knowledgeable proponents from other points of view?

3. call himself an authority in the field of physics?

4. spin more than one hypothesis?

5. get overly attached to his paper just because is his?

6. quantify correctly?

7. make every link work in his chains of arguments?

8. ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified?

9.present his hypothesis as testable?

10. make things easy for others to duplicate his experiments so they can get the same results?

Answer to this questions Carl Sagan proposed a few years ago, and answer honestly. Then we'll talk again, maybe.

much love.

Anonymous said...

I work with engineers, and have for over 30 years. In that time, I've learned to turn my brain "off" at times and when I've watched NH's presentations and quick-thumbed through his paper, doing so has given me endless entertainment and fantasy-level thought. Then I awaken to the realities which Bob (and with support of Wendy) have so aptly pointed out... and it makes me happy to lean back towards my favorite quote by my favorite theorist, "Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning." Thank you all, and cheers!

Anonymous said...

If theory of physics is correct,then something practical must come out of it. Like, transistor, electrical machine,nuclear reactor, photovoltaic cell. If Haramein is right,then we should soon see a generator tapping into the energy of vacuum and powering an LED diode (that's all I ask for start, a little tiny diode). I haven't heard of any practical product made out of his theories, have you? By the way, I found out about Haramein cause a character named Marko Rodin. I saw video on YouTube named something like Rodin's math. So I set down to learn about his math. If any of you zombies outthere think there is any real math in Rodin's math,then you really don't know what math is. So, forget about Bob and other bashers, show me (or better, show it to yourself) a practical device that rose out of Haramein theories. Be carefull though, if that device contains some of Rodin's math and requires you to plug it into AC current....I would ask somebody whom I don't like really much to do it for me.

Anonymous said...

Bob, Wendy - Eminently sensible and entertaining, Bob your debunking looks legit. I read the entire blog. It's most interesting in a perverse way.

To the devoted NH followers - bail now.

To the normal people wondering if he is legit, read on.

wOw there are some nutcases out there! I watched part of a video by NH and got as far as some bogus calculation that concluded there was a stupid amount of mass inside the proton. Then it talked about a "semi-classical" treatment [of something that was clearly in the domain of QM]. Is there really any point in going further? I mean, if there was that much mass inside a proton, it would be pretty difficult to move a grain of sand right? sooooo MUUUCH inertia. :-) ... or maybe this is a special kind of mass. Maybe it's k-mass (or something -- I just made that up). Maybe k-mass has stuff-all gravitational or inertial property (but then it's not mass is it?) No mention of a way to counter this 'little' problem -- not even in the form of anti-gravity. But either 'fix' makes it rather difficult to make a black hole doesn't it? What a load of crap. Now selling crystals? NH == "snake-oil" cross cult cross neo-Scientology == con, no question about it.

If you come here 'wondering' due to lack of physics knowledge or maths, and need expert opinion on his 'work' you found it. If you desire to know anything about how the universe works, don't follow NH.

My 'credentials'? For the right-brain, an artist. For the left, a mathematician, computer programmer and electronic engineer. All this bollox about spoon-fed physicists not using the right-brain and being closed minded, vindictive or dismissive and rude is, as Bob has said just a bit of a tantrum. It's baseless ranting and those posters need to grow up.

I like the analogy about speaking Mandarin etc. I speak a little bit of French. Not much, just enough to recognize what is French, and what is fake-French. So take heart - you don't need to have a lifetime of physics to see what is physics and what is fake. There are some nice physics videos from Yale and although there is a bit of maths, the words and diagrams will make a lot of sense. Try them out.

Why does Tesla get lumped into the crazy camp? I mean - just one single invention (of many) is outstanding (the a.c. motor).

Anonymous said...

Many posters here use Tesla as an example to support Haramein. What the heck? Tesla had degree in electrical engineering from accredited institution. He didn't teach himself electrical tech, as Haramein claims to teach himself physics. Well the difference is obvious, isn't it? Tesla expended existing knowledge, but none of its inventions violated laws of physics.

Anonymous said...

An 'invention' (that works) *cannot* violate the laws of physics. :-)

BLANDCorporatio said...

Hi Bob,

started reading this series of articles (and your patience is to be commended). I encountered this bit:

"Science doesn't – will never and should never – work by someone having a 'vision' which he has convinced himself is the truth, and then trying to force some equations to fit the fantasy without any respect for evidence or for reasoning."

and I just had to stop and comment.

If only the quoted bit were true. As far as pop-sci documentaries go, it's not looking good. Indeed, one of your examples of great communicators of science (Michio Kaku) is in some of the garbage edutainment that's out there. Which is probably all there is on the menu since Sagan went in the great yonder. (Maybe Brian Cox's series is better.)

The problem is that "physics", as seen on the Discovery Channel, or NatGeo, or wherever, is about blowing your mind with "revolutionary" theories (just watch Al-Khalili's content-free doc. on QED) and silly analogies. The math is left completely out, or as a mere prop to intimidate the audience with. There is scarcely any mention of what experiments led to the theories in question or why alternatives were discarded. And there can hardly, in these conditions, be presented an informed discussion on where some theory needs improvement.

I reserve special venom for Al-Khalili's piece on QED because there is a perfect, accessible, intro to it- Feynman's. So the task wasn't impossible, there was even a blueprint right there.

And the thing is, I'm very sure that Al-Khalili, or Kaku, or any other of the talking heads (all of them scientists with actual, valuable work to their names) that appear in the documentaries I don't like, would be able to make a very good presentation of either QED or any topic of science in their expertise and maybe beyond.

But for some reason, I think the TV execs think we the audience are too dumb to understand science and its process. So it comes across as "make the weirdest shit up". It's a great pity. It's clear, for example, that Kaku loves his physics. But I for one can scarcely see a difference between the style of popsci and the style of hucksters.

TL;DR: I blame popsci as a factor in making weird theories with no smidgen of evidence acceptable to the layperson as "science".

BLANDCorporatio said...

Oops, just read another of your posts (on being horrid) and encountered your (online) sources for physics instruction. Excellent list! Susskind's lectures are the best thing around youtube (I don't think Feynman's are there in a complete form). And Sagan proved one could be poetic and no-nonsense.

And here I was thinking you were too taken in by Kaku :P

Anyways, may I recommend Roger Penrose? Now there's a proper nut, a true "original"/"creative" thinker that ACTUALLY understands math (mostly ... I'd disagree with how he goes about Godel's Theorem) and how it underpins physics.

Anyway, Penrose's "Road to reality" is a great book, well worth some effort.

Manna in the wild said...

I've just [hopefully] concluded a few-week long argument with a sci-nut who thinks that the Earth spins because of E.M. radiation from the sun. His last statement was a lament how I'd missed the opportunity to offer him up for a Nobel Prize. I got accused of being a "grade-school teacher with a PhD." (This is one of the strangest comments I've had.) -- probably got labeled because I used a bit of non-relativistic Newtonian mechanics to illustrate some proton ballistics in a magnetic field in the order of microTesla.

"Doing maths" gets no score points for these people. I got told I was unimaginative, backward thinking, closed-minded, uneducated & spoon-fed. NASA is apparently full of idiots.

It was an interesting journey but only if viewed as a psychological investigation. Proper science has nothing to do with their thought processes. The word "science" is just used as a prop. From a 30,000 ft view - the whole process was very similar to a religious argument.

Bob said...

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

@BLANDCorporatio - you're right about Kaku, he's a bit too keen to talk about speculative populist garbage for my taste, and a bit too happy to indulge the nutters, but I think he does a service in bridging the gap between the pseuds and the hard science. Straight quantum physics lectures aren't for everyone.

Popsci walks a difficult line - if it's too precise, it distances itself from the people it's trying to communicate to; if it's too vague or simplistic, there's a risk of misleading people.

The danger is that some people won't realise there's real substance behind the ideas, or that they'll misinterpret a metaphor as a literal truth. I'm in favour of trying to make it clear when what is being presented is just the tip of a vast, solid iceberg, one that has been investigated in astonishing detail from all conceivable angles.

And when speculative theories are presented, I'd like them to be clear that they're speculative.

(Obviously there's no way of preventing opinionated idiots from misinterpreting stuff according to their own agenda, however clearly it's communicated.)

I don't get your problem with Al Khalili though. I'd recommend his Everything and Nothing series to anyone.

Anonymous said...

As far as I know there is no way yo can talk about a new theory without an experiment. The eter theory was "confirmed" in Fizeau's water experiment and yet died.
Nassim doesn't go for any experiment at all and still gets enough funds to play clown for about 20 years.
I percieve his theory as a beggar song. In countries where begging is forbiden he should be prosecuted according to the law.

eternian said...

@Skepticlos Are you insane, Arthur C. Clarke you dismiss merely because you claim he's a writer? Dude he invented the satellite. And why would a "writer" not be trustworthy you idiot? So your comment must disquality you then. Arrogant ignorant fool.

http://narcissist.tk

Cat's Staff said...

Why do these people allow themselves to be recorded...it can never turn out good for them.

Matt said...

Great article, Bob. Looking through the comments, I find myself shocked at the people who think science involves "here's my idea, now PROVE ME WRONG!" As you clearly understand, that's not how it works. Is it possible Haramein has a workable hypothesis? Sure. But the burden of proof is on him to show it. If his hypothesis does not match observed evidence, then it is not a good hypothesis, and he needs to go back to the drawing board. You really didn't need to go much farther than a force of 7.49 x 10^47 dynes holding protons together; if that's at the heart of his hypothesis, then it doesn't agree with reality, and its wrong.

Anonymous said...

oneness The Mayan way to say" hello" actually to say "hello another me"" they understood this

Anonymous said...

Get this off the internet, please. (we need to build a bigger particle accelerator.That is the answer)

Ema Varela said...

Hello, I don't know if this blog is still open or not, but I just wanted to thank you for all your hard work on showing facts, and only facts to disprove this holly grail theory. Nevertheless I'm afraid you have a titanic task ahead of you to convince all the "believers" out there. That's what they are...beleivers, not scientist, they think it's a matter of faith when it's not, it's a matter of facts, and empirical evidence. Keep it up and don't let them discourage you!
I'm sorry for the bad english, good bye.

Bob said...

Read your post and most of the comments, not even sure if this post is still going but just wanted to thank you for writing this stuff up. I have a science/engineering background and one of my buddies showed me one of his lectures and papers. I felt like it was garbage but due to his deliberate misleading and confusing way of presenting ideas I couldn't put my ideas into words. As with most people, I was initially in awe with a new unified theory that I have never heard of before but this is a pretty sold step back in connecting non-science (laymen) people to unified field theory.

Bob said...

Yes, the post is very much still alive. Thanks for your comment :)

mAck said...

1. Bob wishing luck to James Blanchette about selling that set of paintings, made my day complete.

2. To find the post about NH selling new science energized crystal pendants should make stuff really clear in case of doubt.

3. @Bob: Reading the people who supports NH doesn't make you sad? How do you stop feeling terribly bad about this whole situation? I don't know where do you find the strength to keep on doing this, wish I could be like you. lol that makes me a fan? - best wishes and good luck, keep on going!.

freesmithy said...

Does everyone know that Nassim's "schwarzschild proton" paper has been peer reviewed and is now
published at the American Institute of Physics?
That was at the end of last year!

People are saying you can't have a new theory without an experiment but physicist's tend to have a habit of doing it eg... Einstein proposed the theory of black hole's due to mathematical equasion's and the same goes for dark matter and so on...

To me a wrong theory is going to be confusing to the majority which most physic's is but a corect theory is going to be easy to understand like Nassim's theory is. Much like a lie is going to be filled with more lies and end's up tripping itself up but the truth is simple!

Bob said...

Hi Freesmithy - yes, we know what happened. Please check out http://bit.ly/harameinAIP for details.

I agree with you that you can have a new theory without an experiment. I think virtually all scientists would agree.

What you cannot have is a scientific theory which contradicts experiment or observation of the real world. Science is the study of the observable world, and the relationship of our ideas to what is observable. If someone has an idea that involves the moon being made entirely out of cheese, then it is wrong.

Haramein's theories are wrong because they contradict what is clearly observable. I've explained this in some detail in the blog.

I agree with you that a theory that is easy to understand is obviously a very good theory, from a human point of view. But expecting the universe to be easy to understand is not fair on the universe!

Look at your mind, my friend. And now look at the cosmos. Believe me, the cosmos is bigger. Don't go about your life expecting the cosmos to fit nicely within your understanding. It deserves a little more respect than that. If we're going to try to understand the universe, it should be on its terms, not ours.

The single thing we can say for sure is that whenever our ideas contradict what is out there, it is our ideas that are wrong.

If we meet someone who thinks their ideas are more important than the universe, we should know better than to take them seriously.

emerson berlanda said...

you seems concerned about certificates
i am sorry about people who have many of then because this make him like a owner of the words

Bob said...

Nope, not concerned at all about certificates. Concerned about the fact that he knowingly misleads his followers and manipulates large sums of money out of them based on a pretence. Some might like to be more aware of this.

Some might not, of course. Awareness and making the effort to understand isn't everyone's cup of tea, it seems.

Anand George said...

Hey Bob , Im not taking sides. Even i got many doubts regarding his theory and felt like he is skipping something while he presents the results. But one thing i want to contradict with you is ur argument for his explanation on the expansion of universe. He comesup with such an idea because he is telling the space itself is dense than matter and so the newtons laws can be applied everywhere which is basically wrong according to me. If he goes with his arguments then he cant refer to newtons laws of motion ( where newtons mentions about matter or particle every now and then). According to me his results are not mathematicaly proven.

jack said...

Hey Bob,
Thanks for your wonderful effort here.
I just Listened to a radio type interview with NH and liked the sound of what he was saying.. We're all interconnected, the universe is full of energy which we can tap into, the information of the whole universe is contained within each every particle, 96% of the energy in the universe is sort of unmanifest but potential, the whole universe can be explained on all scales by really simple easy principles, you know that's really exciting. There was just a little thing bothering me.. I couldn't quite understand how he figured all this out.

So I started looking into it and eventually found your site and read it through. This was exactly the kind of clear logical thinking that I was looking for from Nassim. I have found what I was looking for here instead and I shall waste no effort in looking to Nassim to shed any light on his wonderous(and totally empty) ideas.

I just want to extend to you my deepfelt gratitude for making such goood information available to me to save me from embarrasing myself with this silly man's idea's and probably spending several days in this ridiculous delusion before finding some other way out.

Anonymous said...

"The mass inside the Universe exceeds the escape velocity of light. That means if you shine a light in one direction... it'll bend around one star, bend around another star, bend around another star... and come right back! That means we live inside a black hole. That's why when you look up in the sky at night, it's black."

I think what nassim meant here, is that the speed of light does not exceed the escape velocity 'produced' by the mass of the universe, thus, light will never reach the speed that is needed to break free from the gravitational field produced by the universe. Does this make a little more sense than Nassim's original claim?

Y.A.

Y.A. said...

God that's stupid, you already mentioned it. Sorry for wasting blogspace, I am an idiot.

Y.A.

Anonymous said...

Bob, if for one second, you could get over your own sense of pride, more people would take you seriously. You get butthurt as hell if someone does not agree with you. You sir, are a dick. A smart dick, but a dick nonetheless.

Bob said...

Hello anonymous. Thanks for inventing emotions for your fantasy version of me, that's very sweet of you.

I encourage people to disagree with me.

That's why I have a comment section, which I don't censor.

It's why I keep asking people to find anything that I've done wrong - or any reason for anything that Haramein has done right. It would be fun if someone came up with one. I'd like it. I do science - scientists like to have their mistakes pointed out to them. (Real ones, anyway.)

I've been asking and waiting for nearly two years.

Also I like to see what people think, and why. If I don't agree, I'll say so. That's ok, no?

What do you think, and why?

Bob said...

From earlier....

Anand George: "space itself is dense than matter and so the newtons laws can be applied everywhere which is basically wrong according to me" - Indeed. That is very wrong.

If space were as dense as Haramein says it is, and you applied Newton's Laws, they are very unambiguous about what would happen: the universe would fall in on itself faster than anyone could see, and with greater force than anything could withstand. It would all be over very, very quickly.

If space were as dense as Haramein says it is and you applied Einstein's Laws, they are very unambiguous about what would happen too. Oddly, it would be the precise opposite. Every tiny piece of space would be ripped open so fast that it would inflate to a billion times its size 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times every second. (Honestly, that's what it says! I had to keep checking that... but it's true.) Again, it would all be over very, very quickly.

But both these theories also make very clear that if space were as dense as Haramein says it is, that neither of them should be used - neither theory would be valid.

Whatever way you look at it, it's not the universe we live in. Newton's Laws work pretty well for virtually everything we do; and Einstein's Theory so far seems to work utterly perfectly for every kind of gravitational interaction ever observed anywhere in the universe.

Haramein's results are far worse than "not mathematically proven" - they're laughably and blatantly wrong.

Physics isn't about "taking sides". I'm not taking sides either.

If you had a friend who starts to believe that he's a purple ostrich, would you talk about taking sides? There aren't any sides to take. There's just a guy who thinks he's a purple ostrich.

Bob said...

Oops. No, I was wrong. I should be more careful. It's not
400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times every second. It's a bit less: only
900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times every second.

That's how many times every bit of space would inflate to a billion times its size, and then a billion times that, and then a billion times that... It's still pretty fast, and not what you'd want to happen.

savvy said...

You're so very defensive, everyone can see that. It looks like you're clinging desperately to an outdated(or incomplete) understanding of physics as it is. It doesn't take any sort of genius to see every aspect of our existence here is evolving and transforming every year, every month, every day... You'd have to be nothing more than a stubborn fool to disregard what Nassim has devoted his life to articulate FOR THE BETTERMENT OF MAN KIND. We've been struggling to unite science and spirituality since the dawn of Galileo and tragic demise of divine interpretation. Now we have Nassim, dedicating his life to bring an era of peace to our most pressing torments... And you spend your free time bitching? Bashing his 20 year long efforts, making snide underhanded retorts towards interested intellectuals, those people you saw to attract when you created this futile cry for an argument. I think you more than anyone here needs to embrace some sense of spirituality.
Being a dick is just going to bring you quite the pounding. Again, doesn't take a genius to realize that much about synchronicity.

Bob said...

Hello Savvy.

Could you please say what, specifically, you think is incorrect about anything that I've said about Haramein's "physics"?

Or tell me specifically what you believe I'm "clinging" to, and what reason you have to believe that it's so outdated or incomplete that it would invalidate what I've said?

Or who these "intellectuals" are that am I making snide retorts about?

Let's flesh out these claims of yours please, and see what they're made of.

You can call it defensive if you like, but I'd like to know what I'm being accused of, or whether it's just empty abuse.

I'm a big fan of uniting science and spirituality. And I'm a big fan of people who dedicate their life to bringing peace. If Nassim was either of those, rather than a fraud, I'd be a big fan. He's clearly not - he's a dishonest and manipulative man.

And he has a fan club who are apparently wholly unable to give a single shred of evidence that any of his "physics" claims bear any resemblance to anything in the observable universe.

Unless you are the exception?

savvy said...

I just read through this entire blog+comments again and I just can't get over how miraculously pretentious you are. Don't get me wrong, I'm a sapiosexual to be reckoned with, there's nothing more attractive than intelligence to me, but your massive ego somehow stuns my intellectually driven libido LOL

There are no redeeming qualities one can possess to extenuate CRUELTY. And you,sir, are a mean person.

It's heartbreaking to see such a smart person imprecate words like "idiot" and "ignorant" and "fool" unto a curious few who are here for guidance. Is this how you plan on "helping" enlighten your brothers and sisters?
Do yourself a favor, and I mean this with all sincerity... Learn the art of kindness.

Bob said...

Er, I don't believe I used any of those terms towards you, despite your abuse.

I don't consider it "cruel" to try to shine a light on someone I genuinely believe is a fraudster, and to invite them and their supporters to respond, and to promise to take down any criticism that turns out to be incorrect.

It's not incorrect. It's information, to help those who care to think for themselves.

I believe that's a good thing to do, and I believe the world would be a better place if more light were shone in the dark and slimy places.

If you don't share this belief, then of course that is your choice.

If you think any of it is wrong then obviously it wouldn't be fair of me. I don't think any of it is, and nobody has pointed to anything so far.

So... once again... could you please say what, specifically, you think is incorrect about any of the reasoning I've used to investigate Haramein's "science" claims?

Anything at all. I'll just wait here.

savvy said...

I guess I found myself something to do in the wee hours of early morning =)
You're quite the disputant as well aren't you....
I'm starting to think there are indeed hidden motives behind this blog of yours, because Bob, I never once stated you to be "incorrect" at any point here... In fact the points I addressed were more of a morality issue if anything. I'm not here to "prove you wrong", and I'm sure as hell not going to give you the satisfaction of being "right". I see now you're just looking for victory head, well, I'm not going to stroke your cock by playing into your cunning little misrepresentations of what I say. Also, I did read this entire blog, and every single comment... unlike the majority of those who visit, you make reference to those who oppose your belief system as "ignorant,idiots" just to name a few underhanded comments. You're a highly transparent individual, Bob. At least for those who take the time to read between the lines.
And you know what I "believe", Bob?
I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief.
My eyes don't register the color green... Does that mean it doesn't exist? Well, that's exactly what it means for ME.

Bob said...

"And you know what I 'believe', Bob?
I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief."


Then we are in agreement.

I'm interested in the morality issue of explaining why someone's claims are false.

I investigated them because I love to wonder about the universe and what it's like. If someone comes up with a story, I find it exciting. I ask myself, I wonder if it's true?

If I then find out that I've been bullshitted, then I look elsewhere.

If you've read my blog, you'll know that I've said many times that if you like his stories but don't care whether or not they bear any relation to reality, then you're entirely welcome to them, and I wish you well.

My blog is not trying to tell you what to believe, or what anything should mean to you. I've just been looking at the science.

And Haramein's science is bullshit. That's not a matter of opinion, or of belief, that's just the way it is.

If you're not interested in his science (which you're obviously not - and I'm not saying that you should be) then I have no quarrels with you, and I'm not sure what quarrels you have with me.

(Highly transparent, now there's an interesting term. It means you think you know all my motivations, and everything that matters to me, that you've got me entirely sussed. That would be cool. It's uncanny how many of Haramein's fans are convinced of their own omniscience and feel that giving reasons is beneath them. I wonder how that happens.)

savvy said...

What struck me the first time I read through this page, would be that you claim to be illuminating one end of this spectrum for people so that they may have a well informed, well balanced perspective on this topic, you boast questioning authority, seeking truth and yet, when someone questions you, I literally see nothing but resentment from you, Mr. Blanchette for example experienced your "tactics" it seems.
I actually don't know much about Nassim, and I'm sure I've only just begun to scratch the surface of physics in general, so I boast no such bias for either party, I DO however see your struggle to accept any coalescence of science and spirituality. Nassim may have a hidden agenda, I don't know, I don't know the guy, but he's not just spouting new age hippy bullshit as you mentioned, these are philosophies and ancient teachings stemming back to the I Ching and beyond, which I'm sure you know, and I'm sure you also know these teachings in specific are particularly harmonious in nature, the VAST majority of individuals who live by these ethics are some of the more peaceful, healthy and progressive, there's nothing "bullshit" about that much...
If Nassim is a fraud, he's doing us all a great disservice, if his motives are monetarily fueled, he'll be damaging a knowledge that could very well inspire us into a grand emergence. But your blog here isn't about separating the frauds from the prophets...
Atleast it doesn't seem that way based off of the hostility you present to anyone who opposes you're debunking methods.
Some people are scientists, some people are philosophers, physicists, shamans, engineers, and we all play integral roles to manifest and materialize our collective (social)) hopes and dreams... attacking one mans attempt at accomplishing this isn't going to get you much gratitude from a society starved for enlightenment. If you're going to attack a fraud, try highlighting his financial endeavors, save the "quack" banter for the Scientologists ;D

Bob said...

I said Haramein's science is bullshit; and his claims to be a scientist are bogus. I say that because I have very good reasons, and I've shared those reasons for others to scrutinise as they wish.

Don't pretend I'm referring to anything else. It's pretty clear that I'm not.

And I'm not attacking anyone's attempt at accomplishing social hopes. I'm saying that his science is wrong, and that his claims are bogus, because they are.

If he wants to change the world, then I'm not standing in his way. If he's going to lie to people who believe he's a genius, then shouldn't I say anything? All I've done is written a blog exposing his "science" for what it really is.

I can see you don't like it. That's ok.

As I said before, if you (or anyone) actually has any reasons to dispute any of what I've said, then fine, let's hear them. It would be only fair for Haramein to have his science defended, if there's anything to defend.

I'm all in favour of fairness, honesty and understanding. I don't see how that's compatible with not speaking out when you spot a fraud.

Meanwhile, let's focus on the positive. There are plenty of inspiring people out there who don't talk out of their backsides.

Here's a post about a deeply spiritual science/philosopher dude who wasn't a fraud, and who understood more about this beautiful world than anyone I ever met. He's a big inspiration, and far too few people have heard of his work.

If you want to believe the things Haramein says because he's smiley and nice, and to discount everything I say because you've decided I'm cruel and mean, then that's your choice.

Anonymous said...

Well done, Bob. Not only on the blog, but responding to some of the most illogical, insane, emotion-fuelled ramblings that I've ever seen put forward as an "intelligible" response to your blog.

The lack of critical thinking demonstrated by most of Bob's detractors in this comment section is, quite honestly, baffling. There are no counter-arguments presented to the patiently thought-out responses, with most resorting to ad-hominem attacks and straw-man arguments.

Sorry people, but a "gut feeling NH is right!" or "I don't understand physics, but let me tell you why you are wrong and NH is right" is not only ridiculous, it's embarrassing.

@ Savvy
What are you even arguing about? This blog entry clearly sets out to critique the (many) scientific inaccuracies of NH's theories. The only people I see getting "defensive" as you put it, are those that have their baseless opinion refuted with Bob's sneaky "tactics", such as that nasty habit he has of using proven science and providing an abundance of sources.

How dare he!

Dave Llewellyn said...

Bob, I appreciate your skepticism supported by science. As much as I know about physics, BOTH you and Haramein might be charlatans. Your own profile does not reveal your identity nor does it describe your qualifications to make the scientific points you are making. If you are legit, why not just put it out there? Otherwise, (I will quote you) "it's some buffoon talking crap, and probably signing in with a different name to say how awesome his own crap is." That wouldn't be autobiographical would it?

Bob said...

Hi Dave.

I appreciate the point you're making. It seems to be one that quite a few people are keen to make.

What I don't understand is why anyone who doesn't believe what I'm saying would believe it if I gave some credentials.

The decision to post anonymously is a personal one, as I've said before. I needn't say more about that.

But I'm also an idealist. Who I am has absolutely no relevance to what I'm saying. If any of it were inaccurate or scientifically groundless, there would be scientifically literate people among the hundreds of comments putting me right.

Thirdly, I don't think you need to be qualified in any way to check a good number of the things I'm saying for yourself. Do a bit of investigation.

And fourthly, if you want an opinion that you trust to be authoritative, find someone "in real life" you feel you can trust personally and who has real experience in working with physics. Which means using physics concepts to really make things happen, not just talking about it. And ask them what they make of it.

I have never asked anyone on here to trust my blog as if it has value because of some authority claim, and I never will.

It has whatever value it has because it's true, and anyone at all is free to check it for themselves.

That's how I believe science truly works.

Anonymous said...

I think claiming that pyramids were constructed by barefoot, non-civilised, food-gathering indians is FACTUALY wrong. Anybody who knows anything about construction would agree (and I know a lot about construction). I would also reject any alien theories regarding pyramids. JoeTheMason

Bob said...

You just gave an opinion and called it a fact, no?

The facts are that the pyramids were built, and we know when they were built. Some people can't imagine how the humans of 4000 years ago could have built them.

Inability to imagine something happening doesn't mean that it's factually wrong. It just means you can't imagine it happening.

I can't imagine how Usain Bolt runs as fast as he does. It hardly counts as evidence against him doing it.

Anonymous said...

I think it says a lot that everyone criticising bob here is having to resort to insults upon his character (baseless accusations at that). Not one single person has given a rebuttal based on the actual science here. Why? because they can't. Bob's understanding is sound, Nassim's on the other hand is extremely questionable and counter to established science and percieved reality. As Bob keeps saying, go ask anyone you personally know who genuinely understands physics, they'll tell you the same thing.

Anonymous said...

Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the dismissive name “Big Bang”
maintained a healthy skepticism throughout his career:
“Big-bang cosmology is a form of religious fundamentalism,
as is the furor over black holes, and this is why these
peculiar states of mind have flourished so strongly over the
past quarter century. It is in the nature of fundamentalism
that it should contain a powerful streak of irrationality and
that it should not relate, in a verifiable, practical way, to the
everyday world. It is also necessary for a fundamentalist
belief that it should permit the emergence of gurus, whose
pronouncements can be widely reported and pondered on
endlessly—endlessly for the reason that they contain nothing
of substance, so that it would take an eternity of time to distil
even one drop of sense from them. Big-bang cosmology refers
to an epoch that cannot be reached by any form of astronomy,
and, in more than two decades, it has not produced
a single successful prediction

Bob said...

Thanks, Anonymous 1 :)

Anonymous 2 -

Firstly, what's your point? Are you accusing me of a "fundamentalist belief in the Big Bang"? I hope not.

Secondly, what is the relevance to this blog?

And thirdly, if he were alive and in possession of his faculties now, with another two decades of extensive evidence accumulated from many independent sources in support of the cosmos having cooled from a hot dense state precisely as it would have if it had emerged from a singularity, and with many astonishing predictions, then Fred Hoyle clearly would not have reiterated those words. He was stubborn, but he wasn't an idiot.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 432   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

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