Thursday, July 22, 2010

A look at Nassim's response to this blog


Contents:
An apology


Introduction

There's been a lot of talk about Nassim Haramein's physics on this blog over the past few months. I'm intending to wrap up the saga with this little post. Wish me luck.




There are six previous posts: an introduction, the original article questioning his legitimacy as a scientist, observations of his approach to mathematics, a detailed look at his current flagship physics paper, a collection of extracts from grossly misleading presentations, and a more personal article about why I started writing all this in the first place. Number seven seems like a good place to end.

I've focused throughout on Haramein's physics. Why physics? Because he claims to be doing serious science, and his institution claims to be revolutionising our physical understanding of the world. If his physics is as awful as I'm saying it is, then that is a very serious bit of misselling.

If fancy physics isn't your cup of tea, there's no shortage of blatant examples of misunderstanding of basic physics that you might get more sense out of. I'd encourage anyone to sit down with their cup of tea and investigate these things further.

If you don't mind a bit of physics with your cupcakes and you're interested in his Schwarzschild Proton theory (that the strong force is actually a gravitational interaction between black holes), then you might be interested to know that if you ask a few simple questions of it, his theory falls completely apart.

Or does it...?


Nassim's response


In this video, Haramein presents his killer reasoning against those who claim to disprove his theories of the universe:



Ok, ok, sorry. I'm not taking this seriously enough...

That's not really Haramein. (Although...) No. You're right. It isn't.

Let's start again.


Nassim's response – take 2

Haramein has now taken on some of the claims that I've made, and has devoted a part of his website to responding at length to the criticisms that I've raised. [Edit, May '13: Haramein has, after nearly three years, decided to remove his response to criticism of his work from his website, as well as virtually all information on what his institution actually does or has been doing for the last two decades. But that's ok - we still have working links...]

I'm happy to spotlight his response here in order to encourage debate. I'm also happy to host any kind of critical debate here, provided it's not offensive and empty. (In contrast, Haramein doesn't encourage debate or provide links to any criticisms about his work, and any kind of critical comment on his blog, no matter how reasonable, will not pass moderation.)

Haramein's response has come as a great source of delight to those who really want to see me getting a good kicking for speaking out against this inspiring and creative new thinker of our time. There do seem to be many such people. Happy days for them!

Nassim's response to my original article is called "Letter to Dr. Bob-a-thon",

So, what to make of all this. To summarise, his rhetoric is great! The bits of physics he's thrown in look really impressive! If the aim is to wow the fans and seal their contempt for me, he's done an excellent job.

But has he actually addressed the criticisms that I've raised? Surely, somewhere in all that work, he must have? Help me out here if you think I'm missing something, but I really don't think he has. I'll illustrate some of the ways he's misused physics in his defence later on.

If you disagree – if you can find any single point in there that convinces you that any of my criticisms of his physics aren't completely valid – then I'd really love to hear from you. It would be great if we could keep it to the physics. I know it won't happen, but it would be great if it did.

Meanwhile, as you can see for yourself, he has had fun doing what he does best – inventing things to entertain his fans, and telling them what they want to hear. He presents this new, conveniently fictionalised version of me to his followers as "an important study for anyone who is interested in my work."

I'm apparently to be seen as someone who "proclaims himself and his institution the beholder of the truth and the only truth as if the standard model was complete and a done deal." I'm also a "reactionary defending the status quo", indulging in "personal attacks, character assassinations and name-calling."

I haven't mentioned the standard model, so I don't know where that came from. I'd never proclaim it as a done deal, and neither would any physicist.
Which one of us has an institution with an ideology to defend against legitimate questions? I don't have one.
Which of us is engaging in immature name-calling? Here's a clue: in Haramein's first response, he twists my silly pseudonym into a derogatory term that he's sourced from that well-respected reference work Urban Dictionary, and uses it as the title of his article. Someone should have pointed out that that's kinda puerile :)

Irony aside, I'm curious as to what name-calling he might be referring to on my part. I can sympathise if he doesn't like the words fraud or fake or pseudoscientist. I did present an extensive exposition of the discrepancies between the claims he makes for his work and the pitiable content of it, however, so they were very natural terms to use. Inescapable, even. Not names.

As for character attacks, I can't prevent him from feeling attacked if he's attached to his ideas. That's fairly standard among pseudoscientists. The thing is, I don't think I've even mentioned his character, except to point out that his integrity is called into question by the claims that he makes.

And I don't even like Status Quo.

But he's right to complain that I don't give him the respect that he feels entitled to. He makes it known that he is deeply offended, which is fair enough. My aim was always to discuss his ideas for what they are, not for what he thinks they are, so his sense of entitlement never really entered into it. It's just one of those things – if you spout nonsense in public instead of doing science, sooner or later people will start saying "hang on, but that's nonsense" rather than treating you as a scientist.

He also makes it very clear that I'm a mediocre mind and that he is a brilliant thinker – in fact he repeatedly compares himself to Einstein. If he has such a high view of himself, it's odd that he should be so upset by the unimaginative challenges of some obscure mediocre blogger. But there we are.

What we do agree on is that one of us must be very closed-minded and deeply attached to his own view of the world.

I do rather like my view of the world, I admit. I've worked quite hard for it. But I also love the fact that people and situations can, and very often do, challenge it and open my mind to greater things. It's just that I resist changing it when presented with nonsense that conflicts with straightforward observations of nature. I've given his approach a lot of consideration – but it is what it is.

I think I've thought through his ideas quite thoroughly though, if you'll excuse the tongue-twister. Far more than I really ought to have; and certainly far more than I intend to in the future.



Ok, ok, enough already, show me the physics

If you're fed up of all these arguments going around in circles, you're not the only one. Let's cut to the chase.

My criticisms rest on the fact that he claims to be doing serious science and revolutionising physics, but his physics theories are nothing more than naive, misleading, and blatantly incorrect ideas. If this is true (and it still is), then all the rhetoric in the world won't save him from being called a fraud.

Let's take the two most straightforward and significant criticisms of the Schwarzschild Proton.

1. His theory gives the mass of the proton as 885 million tonnes when it's straightforward to measure that it's 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram.

2. His theory predicts a force between the protons in a nucleus of 7.49 x 10^47 dynes, which is also many many orders of magnitude larger than what is measured.

These particular conclusions of his theory are all so unambiguously and blatantly wrong, and by such an enormous amount, that I did for a while believe that he wouldn't seriously attempt to defend them. But he has.


1 The discrepancy of the mass of the proton

Haramein discusses the problem of the mass of the proton on this page, about half way down. He starts off by suggesting that I made a basic error in confusing mass and weight, which is untrue – weighing gases to establish their mass is fairly sensible. He then talks about how the source of mass is still a mystery in the standard model, and somehow ends up on the quantization of spacetime... all of which has absolutely no bearing whatever on the very simple and straightforward fact that if something has a mass of nearly a billion tonnes, it ought to be heavy.

He then tells us that "in the final copy of The Schwarzschild Proton we calculate the mass dilation resulting from a proton rotating near relativistic speeds and find that at a velocity of 10^-39 slower than C, the proton exhibits the mass of a Schwarzschild entity."

Mass dilation is a consequence of special relativity that makes objects moving close to the speed of light appear more massive than they would be at rest. I doubt that this will help him explain why they appear so light to us.

This new idea would imply that we'd experience these Schwarzschild protons as 10^39 times heavier in a bound state than as a free proton! A bound state of two protons (and/or neutrons, one would assume – deuterium, for example) would have a mass of 10^39 times heavier than a single proton.

Needless to say, none of this is remotely like what is observed in the real world. He really hasn't thought it through very well.


(He then goes on to say fabulous things like "On the cosmological level, this highly turbulent structure of horizons where velocities approach c may be the source of matter creation through sheering of the spacetime manifold itself at the quantum level which predicts a continuous matter creation model at black hole horizons..." and links to a whole load of string theory papers. All meaningless in this context, and seemingly irrelevant to anything that Haramein has ever suggested. The blatant discrepancy between his theory and the real world remains. Still, if the desired effect is "whoa, hit me with that far-out shit, you like totally pwned that status quo dude, man", then I give it top marks and a gold star.)


Haramein returns to discuss this discrepancy in this document, about 40% of the way down, first by claiming that the Standard Model fudges the mass of the proton by renormalisation. I want to say a quick few words about this complex idea, at the risk of giving you something of a caricature of what's actually involved...

Renormalisation is an aspect of the mathematical treatment of quantum field theories that can either be used very well or rather badly. When used well, the results it predicts are either independent of the finite cut (the "fudge" as Haramein calls it) or if not, the effects of the physics above and below the cut are treated seperately and combined in the final analysis, and a physical rationale for the value of the cut is predicted by the theory itself. This is now such a well-understood process, it can't really be described as a fudge. The prime example is the entire standard model, which has driven forwards the last four decades of highly successful particle physics research, and in particular renormalised QED, the most accurate theory that mankind has ever produced.

When it's used 'badly', the results are highly dependent on the cut, and the user imposes some "correct" scale on the theory from outside, and then asserts that the results of the calculation have some actual measurable physical significance. That surely is a fudge. (I find it unconvincing, though I'm hardly an expert.) I'm not aware of any observations that have ever been made that validates this kind of use of the theory. I'm thinking in particular of the fetish for ascribing values to the energy of the vacuum. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Nassim Haramein, the man who denounces the fudgelessly renormalised Standard Model, makes prominent use of one of these fudged renormalisation results at the start of his Schwarzschild Proton paper by quoting a vacuum energy density as if it has a physical significance.

More irony.

It's true that the standard model doesn't predict the mass of the proton – at least not without first knowing the masses of quarks. It's true that it bases its predictions on a renormalisation process that some see (or let's be honest, some saw several decades ago) as controversial. But does any of this excuse Haramein's theory from the requirement that it should make some sense and relate to the real world? Sorry, but no.

The thing about the measured mass of the proton is that it's always equal to the measured mass of the proton. It's an exceptionally precisely known and unerringly consistent value, and whether or not the standard model predicts it, all theories of physics have to use it. The whole point of science is that it is attempting to reflect nature. As Carl Sagan puts it, "Whatever is inconsistent with the facts, no matter how fond of it we are, must be discarded or revised."

We're still left with the fact that Haramein's theory offers no results that are supported by experiment (aside from those that would follow from the original assumptions anyway), and a whole bunch of conclusions that are inconsistent with the facts by many, many orders of magnitude.



2. The discrepancy of the force between protons

There is another enormous difference between the measured force between two protons and the 'stupidly big' figure in his paper.

Haramein says, "It matters little how 'stupidly big' something is. What matters is if the numbers derived are logical, plausible, consistent with the theory involved, and point to at least useful and/or, ideally, testable results." True words indeed! The numbers Haramein gives in his Schwarzschild Proton paper aren't remotely plausible. Furthermore they can be very easily 'tested', i.e. compared directly to the real world, without using any fancy physics at all, as I will illustrate.

He addresses the discrepancy here, about 90% of the way down. He points out that he has already explained it in his paper using the centrifugal force, and he berates me for not having read it. As it happens, I did read it (the paper is only a few pages long, after all). I didn't bother to discuss it because it doesn't change anything.

In the Newtonian classical mechanics that Haramein has employed, in a rotating reference frame, gravity has an inverse square dependence on separation, whereas centrifugal forces follow an inverse cube dependence. (The only assumption needed for this is that any external angular impulse must be negligible in comparison to the angular momentum of the system, which will certainly be true here.) This means that at some definite separation they will balance – as Haramein correctly points out – but for any displacement from that definite separation there will be a net restoring force. The system is forced back to equilibrium. This is why gravitational orbits are stable.

What does this mean for the Schwarzschild Proton? The forces are balanced at 2.64fm separation; if they were pulled even to 2.65fm apart, the restoring force would already be 0.37% of the full gravitational force, which is 2.83 x 10^45 dynes. Which is stupidly big. By which I mean big enough to make it utterly impossible – it's already many many orders of magnitude greater than any force we could hope to create or observe on Earth.
Looking at it in terms of energy gives us a better way of comparing the numbers directly with the real world.
We can calculate the amount of energy required to separate two protons. For a classical circular orbit, it's half the magnitude of the gravitational potential energy (the rest is provided by the kinetic energy of the orbiting body). In this case, the answer is 1.98 x 10^28 Joules (try it yourself).
This is an astronomical figure, and it would be stupid to suggest this was the amount of energy to split a single nucleus – it's more than half of the amount of energy it would take to remove the Moon from its orbit around the Earth.
Compare this to Haramein's assertion that the "balance between the centrifugal force and the centripetal force is extremely fragile and any disturbing entity would easily knock it out of equilibrium." The work of a brilliant thinker of our time, or utter idiotic nonsense? Go figure.
For the actual, measured, maximum value for the energy required to separate two protons, consider the nucleus with the highest proton separation energy, Helium-4. Subtract the mass of this nucleus from the combined masses of a proton and a tritium nucleus, and multiply by c². The maximum energy required to remove a proton is 3.2 x 10^-12 Joules. For most nuclei, the figure is much lower than this.

Once again, Haramein is around 40 orders of magnitude from reality as a result of using gravity instead of the strong force. Have I used any dodgy physics theories here? These are fairly straightforward observations.

3. Other things that are fundamentally flawed or straightforwardly wrong
I raised many other fundamental issues with his theories, for example his claim that there is an event horizon around a proton (a region from which no light or particles can emerge, especially if this event horizon is somehow immune to rapid decay as protons clearly are). This is contradicted by the fact that we can clearly observe the proton's internal structure. Haramein hasn't responded to this at all.
There's so much in his response that there's no way I could try to deal with it all. There's actually lots of quotes from and links to quite good physics that have been mixed in there that I wouldn't argue with... but very little if any of them are relevant to any of the claims that he's been making. (And in the majority of cases they really don't imply the kind of things that he tries to make them imply. He even includes a quote "the effects of gravity can safely be ignored on a small scale, such as the atomic one" from an article that was supposedly providing a rationale for his black hole obsession. Wake up, research dudes! Get with the cherry-pickin' program!)
All in all, despite the magnitude of the work that has gone into this by Haramein and his staff, I don't believe that he's provided one reasonable argument that contradicts any of the flaws in his physics that I've highlighted in my earlier posts.
I'd like to know if you think otherwise.
As I said earlier, 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. It would be great if we could keep it to the physics. I know it won't happen, but it would be great if it did. Let's face it, it doesn't matter how upset his groupies get, it's the dodgy physics and Haramein's utterly disproportionate claims for his research that are in question here.
If anything interesting comes up from the physics discussion in the comments or by email, I'll include it in my post, and I'll gladly amend the blog if I've said anything incorrect.
Haramein and his fans may be glad to know that I don't intend to write about him any more. And I'll stay anonymous, so they can continue to mythologise me to their hearts' content.

An apology to Mr Haramein
Before I finish, though, I do – in all seriousness – want to apologise for one thing that I have said. Not because I'm worried about legal consequences or anything like that, but because I think I've been unfair.
I did use the word "manipulative", and also words such as "lying" or "deceitful", to describe Haramein's approach to presenting physics. Not very often, but even once is too much. These words clearly imply that he is deliberately setting out to mislead, and I can't possibly know that. While I think the term "misleading" is entirely appropriate, I will accept his objection that it is unfair of me to assume any such thing about his motivations.
It's perfectly plausible that Haramein does have such an inflated sense of his work that he believes that he's doing serious science research, leading a revolution in physics, answering age-old mysteries about the pyramids, solving crop-circles, receiving and interpreting communications from aliens that fly in and out of volcanos and sunspots, proving that there are complex tetrahedral geometries in everything in the universe that generate paranormal phenomena, finding the secret connections that link them all with hidden subtexts within the Bible, and so on and so on; and perhaps he truly believes that he's on the verge of transforming the world into a haven of free energy and understanding and that any minute now the scientific community will wake up to his truth and recognise his contribution. He may well also believe that he didn't invent the fictionalised version of me that he presented. Who knows what he believes.
It's plausible, though I admit to finding it difficult to understand. How is it possible for a view like that, however sweet and innocent an ideal it might come from, to survive contact with the real world for so many years? Perhaps this could be admirable in some way.
Maybe it's understandable if you set out early in life with a drive to communicate some view of the world that feels good and gives people what they want to hear; and if you then find yourself with thousands of fans who admire you for it and allow you to make a living from it and see you as their hope and their light, then I guess you could be forgiven for mistaking it all for reality. I'm sure there are plenty of precedents.
What's hard to believe is that it could be possible to maintain these kinds of delusions without some conscious act of sustained wilful ignorance as to what's actually out there, especially if he's involved in actually trying to carry out research. But perhaps he is somehow capable of this in all innocence. So I'll let it go.
For this reason I've agreed to remove all instances of the offending words from the main body of my blog, and this disclaimer can be seen as a retraction of any use of these words elsewhere by me. He may well be a really lovely character, as I said in my original post nearly six months ago. My criticism, as I keep saying, concerns the content of his science, and the disparity between this and the claims that he makes for it. Not his intentions in doing so.
Misleading it certainly is. He succeeds in pulling the wool over so many of his followers' eyes, whether he intends to or not. His impressive ability to sustain this level of ignorance for so many years will never qualify as a reasonable excuse for making a living by misleading people into seeing him as an authority.
Luckily for us, we can continue to discuss his incompetence as a scientist and to question his integrity without resorting to any assumptions about what in the name of arse is going on inside his head.
I do hope that settles the matter to Mr Haramein's satisfaction.

426 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 426   Newer›   Newest»
Adam said...

Great blog, how come you're the only person out there debunking this guy?
Despite his pseudoscience, I have one good thing to say about Mr. Haramein. Even though I have been thinking about this for the past 4 years and only recently came across his video about a month ago. He(and your blogs, which I wouldn't have found without him) has got me seriously questioning my career path(web designer/developer) and at the moment, has got me seriously thinking about whether or not I should go back to Uni to work on becoming an Astrophysicist, a career I really wanted to follow when I was a kid. But maybe I'm too old. :(

Bob said...

Thanks Adam!

You're right, he does get people thinking - myself included. Of course it's never too late to become an astrophysicist - that's a fabulous thought!

There are some great resources on the web if you want to study a little and get a taste of it. Obviously there are documentaries with cgi and everything, but if you want to get the feel of really studying this stuff, from scratch, and see how much you can learn and how insightful it can be, then get yourself a nice new note book to scribble in, find yourself 45 minutes three times a week for the next couple of months, and try these lectures on YouTube. If you do, let me know how you found it. Different people click with different things, but I think they're a great place to start.

Good luck out there!

Phillip said...

It is clear to me that this self proclaimed physicist Nassim Haramein has wasted the time of even the non academics who find themselves lost within his fantasy world.

The worst part about Nassim Haramein is that just like Glen Beck(a U.S. pundit political TV show) he draws in multiple viewers who are looking for simple glossed over explanation to complex bodies of work that they can't understand. He is also very much like Mr. Beck in the same way that he does not actually pull his statements from any physics, whether it be standard model mainstream luke warm stuff, or the most cutting edge exciting theoretical material. It is all just bad physics put on by someone who wants to make money by taking guests on camping trips.

There are a lot of these types out there. Glad we have someone to put men like him in their place! Thanks you Mr. Bob Athon.

Anonymous said...

Bob,

I have a few friends with their heads planted firmly up their ass about this guy. Without going into physics, what would you suggest is the best argument to convince them he's bogus?

John said...

Anonymous-you have to show them how wrong the physics he is putting in people's minds is wrong.

I do not think Nassim understands just exactly how much information he does not understand. The man is so cocky it shows right through the dag gone videos. I think he has a "charm" about him which gets people involved with him. But none of his audiences are real physicist, or geologist or even math teachers. Most of them are new age healers who went to Greatful Dead shows and practice Hindu philosophy. That is how they get caught up with Nassim. He mixes eastern philosophy with physics to make it look holistic.

Anonymous said...

Nassim Haramein is a worthless excuse for a human being. I have to admit I was a fan of his, I liked his videos and I liked his style'n all. But he just doesn't cut it anymore.

He goes on and on with this pointless research which has no focus whatsoever. They always say he is on "lecture tours" with real physicist and they told Bob ,in that response from Nassim, that Nassim is constantly approached by established physicist so they can humble in his presence and ask him questions. BULLSHIT!

I am calling Nassim Haramein out! I bet he has never even had one real academic physicist approach him and ask him jack squat! He is a lying Charlatan and I am going to prove it.

Then if I can, I have half the mind to call up the FBI and expose him as a fraud for running a fake business and claiming he has solved the worlds major creation questions. Isn't it a crime to sell fake stocks? Or scam somebody with new age yoga techniques that don't work? Well then why not scamming someone by making them pay $400 for a weekend to go bike riding with this long haired stoner freak of nature!

Bob said...

Hi Anonymous (26th July)

I don't know what you can say to people who've already made up their minds. Telling them that they're wrong generally doesn't work. Maybe the best thing is to stay open and non-judgemental, ask them how they know the things that they know, and ask them how they tell the difference between things that they know are true and things that they might just want to be true.

It often comes down to this 'resonance' idea... that people feel they know the truth internally because it resonates with them. Really all that means is that it makes them feel good in some way. People are self-centred enough to think their own inner 'spiritual' responses to ideas are the ultimate test of all truth, even ones as far removed from human intuition as a black hole or a proton. And self-centred enough to think that this puts them above science and reason.

The problem with self-centred 'spiritual' beings is that if you contradict their beliefs, they receive it as a personal attack, and you become the enemy. Because to them, everything you say is about them, and if there is a conflict it's your fault. If they're going to change, they'll have to figure it out for themselves, and the best anyone else can do is try to help them see their own beliefs in a clearer light, while being very very careful not to contradict any of them.

Needless to say, this isn't what I've been doing on my blog. :-) Good luck if you feel you have the patience to try it!

Bob said...

Hello John and Anonymous (27th July)

Yes, he certainly charms people, and he must believe in what he's doing, at least to some extent. He's got such a reputation for it now, and such a following, that it would be a lot to ask of him to actually open up to the possibility of being so completely wrong. It would be an impressive man indeed who could admit to that. It's just a shame that so many people find this more attractive than genuine science.

Perhaps it's the way science is taught in schools, and how science education can make pupils feel about themselves. Some people feel that it's being dictated at them by authority figures, and they reject that.

Whatever it is, it really engages people, because it's human nature to want to get at the truth. If you feel you've found the truth, it's pretty natural to want to hang onto it and to react strongly when it's threatened. If later on you feel you've been duped, it's pretty natural to react strongly to that too.

If Haramein wants to have new age gatherings and be a popular guru, then I think that's fair enough. If he wants to learn about the physics of our fantastic universe and teach others the things that he knows, then that's brilliant.

But whenever someone starts inventing things and convincing themselves and others that they're facts, and they can't stop, they need to know that there's actually something very wrong with them. The fact that he's surrounded by people who believe him doesn't make it ok.

He's not the only one out there by any means.

I don't think it's possible to prevent people like him from running their little organisations, and personally I'm not too bothered by this. I don't think it would solve the problem - people will jump on whatever glittery spiritual-looking bandwagon is going by.

All I want is for some light to be shed on what he's up to. So that when people are ready, they can think things through for themselves in a different light and make their own choices.

Anonymous said...

I read your most recent entry with a bit of frustration; frustration because you cannot call an obvious charlatan what he is and feel a need to retract some of your statements regarding intention.

Groups like the Discovery Institute and the Institute for Creation Research have managed to be both enormously lucrative and pose a massive challenge to educators while creating a further layer of distrust between researchers and laymen.

If Haramein stuck to the alien conspiracy mumbo-jumbo, I imagine his Resonance Project would be as harmless as the next scientology, but of course his claim to fame comes at the expense of scientists (from all fields.) No one has asked Haramein to apologize for accusing the entire academic world of global fraud.

Haramein ultimately (whether -you- can use the language or not) is anti-science. I can't see much of any redeeming good coming out of his actions other than perhaps making people think a bit. You may be stuck with retracting statements of motive from your blog, but unfortunately the general public does need watch dog groups to point out the charlatans.

Bob said...

Hi Anonymous (July 30)

But I don't know his intention. I hate it when people pretend to know mine, or preach mine to me. I don't want to do it to other people. The facts speak for themselves - there's no need to sink to the level of presuming his motives.

Objectively, the guy's talking garbage and selling himself as an expert, and some people buy it. That much is extremely clear. So either he knows it, in which case he's a manipulative crook; or he doesn't know it, in which case he's either an utter moron, severely deluded, or mentally ill in some way. (And it is appropriate to use such strong language, because there is no shortage of well-informed people that this man can draw upon for impartial advice, but he continues to dismiss whatever doesn't fit with his ideology.)

If he or his followers want to take my retraction as some kind of victory, then you have to smile! Makes me smile anyway.

Of course if anyone wants to take on the role of prosecutor in the case against him, or watchdog, then great. I've never identified with that role at all - hopefully you're not telling me that I should.

My role here is to present objective facts here to help people make up their own minds. I really want people to think for themselves, not just take my word for anything. That's why I'm only talking about the things that I have very clear perspective into. I've said from the start that if anything I've said is not in that spirit then I'll happily change it. That spirit is important to me.

I'm not really clear what you found frustrating - did you think I was suggesting there is 'redeeming good coming from his actions', or that he was 'harmless'? That would be a very strange reading of what I've written. Of course he's anti-science! Absolutely!

What I was saying is that he might not be telling deliberate lies - let's give the guy credit, he might just be mentally incapable of giving any rational consideration to his prejudices. That would be a pretty serious mental problem - but you have to admit, it's conceivable, no?

Bob said...

Just to clarify... when I said "I hate it when people pretend to know mine...", I wasn't referring to you at all.

I hope that's clear from what I was saying.

Another thought: one ideal outcome for me would be for stubbornly deluded people like Haramein to end up surrounded only by other stubbornly deluded people, who "just know that he's right, somehow, deep inside" and can't cope with any process of thinking that might contradict their precious innards.

It's the people who are truly curious about the universe that I'm bothered about. They deserve better. What I'd really like to see would be something like this:

Even if truly curious individuals don't read a single online word against him, they quickly notice that he's entirely surrounded by stubbornly deluded people who are incapable of holding a rational conversation, that sets off the alarm bells, and they look elsewhere... and maybe discover something truly wonderful - and genuine.

That'd be a good result.

Anonymous said...

As someone who lives in California and has to deal with followers of Haramein and other charlatans, I thank you so much for taking the time to do this. Pseudoscience(and all out quackery) seem to be in full swing these days with the proliferation of the internet. We need more people like you to stand up to this kind of fraud.

Anonymous said...

All I can say is, keep up the good work on this guy ( is his name even real? He is Swiss with a name like Nassim Haramein? Everything about him feels false. There is many a guru on every street corner these days. Using science, maths, religious theories, secret societies, rewriting history, Egypt theories, Jews ruling the world, Arabs ruling the world, Americans causing all war, famine and of course controlling and ruling the world, corporate greed, the royal family being lizards.. Damn the BS out there is mind boggling. And people inundate themselves with video after video( and then enlighten me with this propaganda rubbish). You even have to be careful what books you read, it’s everywhere... I guess people are looking for a prophet to save the worlds ills instead of just looking within. Also it’s a great way to make some serious money being an enlightened guru. Just look on Facebook , it’s rife.
“You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion. “
L. Ron Hubbard

Bob said...

Thanks guys. Yes, he's real. He claims he's not out to manipulate or doing this for monetary benefit. Indeed he may be living the life of a selfless renunciate for all I know. What I do know is that he uses misleading claims, cherry-picked research and all-out nonsense in order to raise funds for crackpot 'research' projects.

One project is to build a gadget in his research park that will recreate the dynamics of a star. Why? Because perhaps we can tap the energy source of the 'black hole' that powers it? Perhaps we can tap the 'infinite energy of the vacuum'? Perhaps with the equation that he's found that proves that we're all one with everything, he can use it to help us all achieve our true potential, which is to live in harmony in his galactic society? (His what? See here from 6:50 on.)

You can view his patent application here. What this gadget might do is generate some pretty plasma dynamics, which might be coerced to glow a bit like the surface of the Sun, but only if VAST amounts of energy are poured into it to maintain it at thousands of degrees. This will achieve the goal of making even more gullible people go "woo" and roll belly-up and attest to his genius.

It won't tap any energy sources, because stars work by having a fusion reactor at the core and, contrary to the fractal obsessives who have mindlessly convinced themselves that everything is scale-invariant, stars self-sustain by being big.

It's a bit like trying to recreate the dynamics of a power-station by making a small cardboard cut-out and putting a kettle inside it so that real steam comes out of the chimney. And then insisting that it's real research, and it might start generating real megawatts any minute - you don't know until you build it - so if you fund it your name will be up in lights when I use it to solve the world's energy problems... look, I have equations...

And so on. It's easy to see why people fall for it. Time will tell, they love to say.

I do wonder what they're waiting for time to say.

Anonymous said...

The worst thing about these people is, they appeal to those who have no knowledge on the topics he is talking about. I have no knowledge on science, buy my logic and reasoning tell me what he is saying, makes no sense. I have read many books on ancient/modern history and religious history, also I have travelled extensively. So I can attest a good portion of his knowledge on these subjects is convoluted, made up and extremely confused. He talks the same gobbledygook and makes odd connections where there are none, just the same as the many conspiracy type movies and gurus on the net. This guy is no different. He has been clever enough though, to tap into the current trend that the uneducated new age, spiritual hunters are into, and that is science and quantum physics.
Basically they just need to read anything on Buddhism or Hinduism, its all there, 1000s of year’s worth.
Thanks for the links, I couldn't actually sit through the vids for more than a few seconds at a time, the madness that emanates from them is glaring me in the face, I can only feel that other people don't see that, as they have decided to allow others to think for them and do the "research" ( and I use that word ironically) for them also.

Patrick Muller said...

Mr. Bob-a-Nonymus,

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. Haramein's quest more good then harm.

The Universe works in mysterious ways indeed..

Patrick Muller, The Netherlands

Bob said...

Hello again Patrick! You posted the same thing here an hour later? I guess you didn't learn much from reading this post then. :-/

Please see my response to your original comment here.

Anonymous said...

Patrick, your contradicting yourself. Are you upset about Bob being condescending when he expresses his views on Haramein's psuedoscience or are you upset by the actual views that are challenging your belief system in this Haramein guy? You said yourself you don't have the knowledge to say who to believe, so what are you angry about then? If it's a condescending writing style that gets your goat, I implore you to never read any media collumns or reviews or anything where someone oppiniates, you will be complaining like a mad man otherwise.

Scott1982 said...

Thank you Bob for putting for the time and the effort to help others better understand physics and mathematics, two subjects in which I am not well versed. I enjoy learning about new scientific theories and when a trusted friend began to tell me about this Haramein guy, I was intrigued. I am a true skeptic by nature, so understandably after watching one video of this guy, I felt something was awry. I was able to find your blog and was immediately impressed by the fact that you stated very clearly that you were just trying to present scientific facts and not promote your personal ideology. I also really enjoyed all of the links that you provided to further investigate these claims and the fact that it was so easy to check out the information you provided. Once again I am grateful that there are people like you who put so much energy into helping people, not unlike myself, understand more fully subjects they do not completely grasp. It is nice to be presented with reason and facts and access to information to further investigate these ideas on our own. Thank you.

Bob said...

Thanks Scott :-)

jcherpaw said...

Hello, Bob...

I am appreciative of your efforts on the subject of this fellow...

I am most curious your take on the casimir effect and the past few decades of (Realer) science related to this topic. If you have any ideas as to where one may obtain educational video, or reliable sources for an informal researcher (generalist like me),related to the works of john hutcheson et al, and the solid state physix involved, i would forever be grateful...and discontinue my run on sentencing and poor use of grammar
...he hee...


thnx
J

Lee said...

Lee

After having read both replies, and slightly attempting to understand the physics of it, came to a conclusion. Because of a lack of understanding the deep and fundamental science behind the proclaimed and disputed subject, decided to look at the approach of conversation of both parties.

It is evident that both you guys have ego's (like all of us ), as both resort to attack and defence tactics of labelling each other as "the non believer" and the "deceptive pseudo-scientist". Precisely, the mind image making of what the other person is (perceived to be), and then by association making him the enemy, or the wrong "doer". Whoever might be wrong, or right in this situation, is irrelevant. Why?

Here's a few of questions for the both of you.
If one was not to oppose the other, would the truth eventually shine through? Can one lie indefinitely? Without consequence or eventual manifestation of falsehoods?

If you touched the "truth", have a glimpse of it.. Then what do you fear? Would you rather humbly teach it and wait for the world to see it? Or would you rather fight your way into peoples minds ? Would you fight those who have a different perspective on it? Are you sure you have the complete 100% full truth on the matter? Can you possibly know ALL that there is about it?

Wish the best of luck to you guys, and hope that you come to a peaceful agreement, within your minds. There is no them, we are one people on this planet.

Bob said...

Hi Lee.

I guess if two people present a load of stuff that you don't really understand, and neither of it looks any more sensible than the other to you, then it will just look like some petty bickering. That's fair enough.

Please be aware, though, that just because you don't understand something yourself, it doesn't mean there isn't a very definite answer. Sometimes there is.

I've tried my best to explain the reasons I have for asserting that it's extremely clear that Haramein is bullshitting. Please refer to the paragraph near the very top of the page that begins "I'm also aware...".

Your peace message is well taken... but perhaps you can understand that I'm not very interested in agreeing with Haramein, since it's clear to me that he's a fake. My allegiance is with the beauty of nature, with honesty and with genuine seeking after truth.

Haramein is free to think whatever he likes, I don't mind. I've never attempted to convince him of anything, and I've never tried to stop him doing what he's doing. Sometimes peace comes from agreeing to disagree, don't you agree?

Bob said...

Hi Jcherpaw - apologies for not responding earlier...

The Casimir effect is great - it employs the vacuum to generate a force. This video explains it well - you've probably seen it.

What it doesn't do, and cannot do, is to employ the vacuum to generate energy. The Casimir effect is certainly amazing, but within the framework of quantum field theory it's a perfectly sensible phenomenon. QFT is the most successful and precise theory of nature that has ever been developed. One of the things it tells us is that the vacuum is a fascinating and alive place, teeming with energy and activity. The vacuum effects that it predicts are observable, and stunningly accurate.

This idea of energy in the vacuum is just irresistible to pseudoscientists. Because everyone wants free energy! If you go out and announce that you can produce it, you're guaranteed tons of attention.

The thing about QFT is that it also makes it pretty clear that this energy is an integral part of the vacuum, and it can't be extracted. However you want to conceptualise it, the vacuum in QFT is still a vacuum, and you still can't take anything out of it.

The Casimir effect is very very tiny... but if you had plates that were large enough and close enough together, you could use the tiny force that's pulling the plates together to do some work, maybe drive a little dynamo, charge a tiny battery or something. But then you're left with two large metal plates stuck together, and you need to put at least that much energy back in just to pull them apart.

I'm not familiar with Hutchison, but from what I can see he hasn't gained a particularly good name for himself among people who understand the theory that he claims to be using. He seems keen to get people to believe that there's some government conspiracy against him (standard behaviour for a pseudoscientist). I've met many academic physicists, all of whom are simply fascinated by the wonders of the universe and couldn't give a monkey's about the government. If there was any truth in any of what Hutchison was doing, they'd be falling over themselves to get on the case and try to figure it out.

The internet is full of people like him. I guess all you can do is keep investigating. Don't take my word for it. But don't settle for your intuition either, because when it comes to quantum physics, the human intuition is notoriously accident-prone.

What solid state physics were you curious about?

Anonymous said...

I am very thankful for your work in criticizing Mr. Haramein's work in what seems to me to be a modern-day Joseph Smith-style cult creation. I have a few friends who became closely involved in his Resonance Project, but I try not to criticize people I care about for believing in things that I consider to be nonsense (it would take up too much of my time), so I keep my reservations about their chosen beliefs to myself for the most part. Though I have only a very elementary understanding of physics and mathematics, I've read quite a bit on psychology and Mr. Haramein's language seems, from my perspective, to be very manipulative. I've definitely noticed that he repeatedly equates himself with genius unimpeachable (Einstein in this case), paints himself as an anti-hero of "the establishment", and many other tactics that cult leaders and salesmen utilize. From that standpoint, he loses me before we even get to the physics part.

It is quite disturbing to me that he has recently become involved with a new corporation (since the loss of his Resonance Project- I guess nobody buys DVDs that are viewable on youtube for free, go figure), The Noetic Advanced Studies Institute is run by Richard Amaroso and Elizabeth Rauscher, two people who claim to have VERY distinguished backgrounds in physics, but have written a book together that simply SOUNDS like an acid trip: "The Holographic Multiverse: Formalizing the Complex Geometry of Reality". Any thoughts on this new development? I can't find much on google offering a critical perspective on these people, and your blog post is virtually the ONLY one I've found that disputes Mr. Haramein with any seeming authority. I know it's not a physics question, but any enlightening input on this matter from yourself or any of your readers would be wonderful. Thank you for what you have accomplished here, and I am glad that you have the good taste to not reveal your identity and lose credibility. I simply do not trust wannabe rockstars like that man.

Bob said...

Thanks for your comment... it's good to get a coherent perspective from someone who understands more about psychology than me. The Joseph Smith comparison is rather disturbing - let's hope his followers don't take it that far!
I don't know very much about Amaroso or Rauscher. I can see why any group wanting the appearance of scientific credibility would fall over themselves for the right to flaunt Rauscher's resumé, but it's certainly no guarantee of objectivity or rational behaviour, especially over the last decade.
All I have to go on scientifically is a bunch of confused physics papers that Rauscher has co-authored for the Resonance Project. And her recent choice of colleagues, of course. But I'd be interested to know what anyone else thought.

Bob said...

Regarding Elizabeth Rauscher and Richard Amaroso, you might be interested in checking the notes on the revision history of the Noetic Advanced Studies Institute page on Wikipedia.

The article was originally set up as a sly means of getting Haramein back onto Wiki, given that all attempts to establish him as a notable scientist have been deleted.

The article appears to have come to the attention of Amaroso, the Director of the Institute, who expresses his shock at the top of the article's talk page, and then deletes three sections relating to Haramein, giving the following explanatory notes:

1. "I Richard Amoroso am director of NASI, N Haramein has absolutely no association with NASI, Some of his work was mistakenly published as a favor to his co author Elizabeth Rauscher"

2. "N Haramein is not associated with NASI, his use of a faux NASI website is SLANDEROUS, R. Amoroso - Director."

3. "Haramein has slanderously used NASI for his purposes and is NOT ASSOCIATED with it !!! R. Amoroso, Director"

I can't confirm that these are genuine contributions from him, but I see no reason to think otherwise, and it's of interest nonetheless. Perhaps that sheds some light on your questions...

Loek said...

Hi Bob,


Could you explain what is the impact of difference of 4% found for the mass of the proton lately?

Off course, that is nothing in comparison with the mass stipulated by NH, but it made me wonder as this mass was measured hundreds times before.


With kind regards,


Loek

Bob said...

Not sure what you're referring to. Throw me a link, Loek

Loek said...

Hi Bob,

The claim that the mass has been measured wrong is false. This is an example of what I meant:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3548/proton-bombshell-leaves-scientists-stunned

It is actually radius and not mass, but that is for me just as amazing. Mass and radius are related, because it implies that the density of the proton should be different as well. And a 4% change for something which is measured very often is quite big. Like I thought I was 1.87m, but turn out to be 1.80m. But my weight is still the same? Hmm, hopefully that is caused by some dark matter.


With kind regards,


Loek

Bob said...

Yes, that's interesting.

The mass of a proton is known to one part in 20 million. The radius is altogether less straightforward.

It's not like measuring your height at all. As you know, a proton is not like a billiard ball - it's a fuzzy distribution of quarks and gluons. What they're measuring here is the mean square charge radius, which tends to be referred to as the proton's radius simply because it's the most useful for scattering experiments. In reality it's no more than a convenient parameter.

Still, it's a parameter with a clear definition, so it should be accurately measurable. Our best theory of charged objects is QED, and it tells us that we can find this radius by scattering electrons off protons, and the answer is 0.88fm (to an accuracy of about 0.8%).

What these guys have found is that if you use muons instead of electrons, you appear to get 0.84fm (to an accuracy of about 0.1%).

These results don't agree, and they're not sure why. It'll be interesting to see what happens next! Something will have to give.

As an example of how strange the concept of charge radius is, take a look at the radius of a deuteron (which is just a proton + a neutron)

proton radius = 0.88 fm
neutron radius = 0.3 fm
deuteron radius = 2.1 fm

These are quantum systems with parameters that don't always make straightforward intuitive sense. The whole thing is a lot more technical than they're making out.

Mass, however, is much more measurable and definite.

(Note that Haramein uses a value of 1.32fm as the proton's radius in his Schwarzschild Proton paper!)

jcherpaw said...

Hi again, Bob

I am curious what you think of my "intuition" regarding the following (crude) ideas.

If the magnetic field on earth is not constant,(like gravity), varying according to
location, is it reasonable to assume that the potential (of difference) in electrical charge will also be directly proportional to their respective difference?

If this is given, one might, as i suspect, find two (or more ) locales with differences in (field)potential and literally tap in to the earth.

A copper pipe driven into the earth at one locale connected to another locale where another copper pipe is driven into the ground: This would be a potential of difference.
Is not the Earth itself used as "ground"? Can this not be ued to advantage...Whether it be near man made electricity or no?

Could this be used on the planetary scale??

One pole could be on ,say, the "Daylight" Side of the Planet, whils the other copuld be on the Night side of the Planet...This would mostcertainly be useful on the Moon.

Lastly...Why is it not possible to use the x-ray energy comming directly (or indirectly) from the sun. It is already possible to use x-rays to transmit energy...but why can we nort directly tap in to the energy of x=rays, as the sunspots vary, so too the energy...surely sttellite yechnology already is taking advantage where this effect is much more intense.

if you do not wish me to clutter this post with such questions, let me know, as i am not a professional in any regard.

I am simply working on nature and science. I thinkg nuturing a plant is as interesting as studying electricity...or any other science in general...
Thanks

Jcherpaw






I suspect my intuition correct, though i have not yet proven this.

i am interested in producing energy for personal use with the least amount of tehnical apparatus.

This may seem rather unsophistcated to some. However,
Solving energy requirements for oneself would be of enourmous benefit to more than one individual.

A crude example of energy already available: A grid may be useful.


Also, there is the idea of collecting "stray", or excess energy using a parabolic dish for
EMF.

Inductance Reactance Capacitance circuitry.

Finally there seems to be some evidence (very hard to find)that "nano" amounts of energy have been produced

Bob said...

Nice idea, Jcherpaw, but the Earth conducts electricity fairly well already (that's why we use it as an 'earth'), so charges already flow to neutralise any potential differences on the surface.

You could investigate this by checking out the conductivity of the Earth and the fluctuations of electric potential that have been measured.

The amount of energy present in solar x-rays is much lower than the energy present in visible sunlight. Satellites and solar panels are designed to tap as much solar energy per dollar as possible. I suspect that building complex devices to add in a few little x-rays would lower the solar energy per dollar, not improve it.

Again, you could investigate that yourself by looking up the details of the solar spectrum and what would be required to tap different components of it.

I don't know what you mean by nano-energy. Sounds like you could use a course on electromagnetism to give you the tools to explore what's out there. Here are some good ones.

jcherpaw said...

Yes, Thank you...Was in the middle of previewing post...what i meant to say, Nano amounts of energy=miniscule amounts of energy in one experiment i came accross. This was the only one that seemed legit...I shall find the source and post it.
Am acqainted with physics, chemistry amnd mathemeatics.

I dont need a Doctorate to know the rudiments.

An example: Mabny believe there is a dark side of the moon (perpetually!) simply because the moon is not entirely visible from the surface of the earth...I told a friend, who was really into space and technology and really quite a bright fellow, that there is no such thing as a dark side of the moon, only a "far" side from our perpective here on the surface.

If one is on the moon, there would be a sunrise and sunset...The evidence, from our vantage point is that the sun shines on the "far" side of the moon when the moon is invisible to us (phases of the moon)...He was quite taken with his misconception at the time.

I am always studying (self taught).

the greatest problem ive identified from noticed is the dumbing down of the education system...And/or the public in general...
i am not the smartest in the world, but have done and continue to do my homework.

The experiment regarding the energy derived from the casimir effect i mentioned, relates to your reply comment about the energy derived...
"work, maybe drive a little dynamo"
to quote exactly...This seems to have been proven, but i will get back to you.

thanks again

J

jcherpaw said...

Ps. Hutcheson is seemingly an opportunistic fraud...J

krissthesexyatheist said...

Hey Bob, I guess I should have checked out this blog first. I was at a hippie concert where RP was giving a lecture about Unified Theory, but I missed it. It seemed new agey so my skeptic alarm went off. I just commented about them in general, which is probably enuff. I'll be back here and do more research on them. thanks so much.

Kriss

AP said...

Kriss, I am glad I saw your post here. There are a few things I want to say. But first, Bob has been a great help and support here. In addition to discussion and mentoring me in some areas of physics, he has also done what so many are afraid to do and stood up to people like Nassim and others, which I will mention below. Your story caught my eye, because of the festival(assuming) you said you were at. Here is why:


to make a long story short, I have been involved in also speaking out against Nassim. At first I had watched his presentation and enjoyed some of simple ides expressed, but then things changed. Being in a academic field, and knowing the meaning of hard work, I just took all of that and applied it to the physics world, what amazing work the mainstream physics community has really done, and how pseudo science steps in to claim it's piece of the pie.

I am a musician as well, and some of my favorite musicians are the ones that Jamie Janover shares the stage with,(if you will recall Janover is a huge proponent and "emissary" of Haramein) and recently I had an unfortunate exchange with Janover.

(cont below)

AP said...

I love so many jam bands, and the scene as well as culture that follows, I am well acquainted with eastern philosophy and Hinduism, being Indian and raised by Indian parents. While Janover is a good musician ( I am not a big fan of the new age techno stuff, mostly just traditional jam bands, but he is talented nonetheless) he also uses the venues of these jam band festivals to promote Nassim Haramein's flawed physics. Not only that but it is almost like a cult, and guess what...if you speak out strongly against Haramein, you will be ostracized from that community by Janover. He even brought up the name "Steve Kimock" to me, and said " BTW- Steve Kimock likes Haramei, would you dare to say this kind of stuff to him?" in response to my comments attempting to bring some rational thought onto his facebook page where all kinds of convoluted ideas are stated as facts and real science is put down extremely quickly.

Bob has detailed why Haramein's work is nto only pseudo science but almost fraudulent in my opinion. I have sent Haramein's work to some of my old undergraduate and graduate physics professors and they have also said the exact same thing "word soup" basically.

So when I attempted to continue what Bob had begun by reasoning with folks and offering the truth to them, (which is why he was eventually kicked off the Resonance Project page) I too was booted off. Except, with me, I got very unprofessional at times, because the scale of stupidity on their parts was so enormous,and I will admit to my mistake. Even though in the main RPF insults fly left and right if you do not agree with Haramein, you are called names and you are insulted, then they summarize what you said in a inaccurate way and present you as someone who has "hate-filled life" and all sorts of other nonsensical euphemisms and ad hominem attacks on you.


In that particular music scene perhaps the saddest thing is that most of the people will discard you if you don't join in the pseudo science with them. Enjoying and creating good music, while understanding, and loving real science and all of it's elegant offerings is considered taboo. If you like NASA, then guess what, you are part of "the man" the "system" and you are "hateful". Such close-minded backwards preaching logic these people have.

"You can't be a 'hippie' and like 'our' music if you don't agree with false pseudo science, and agree to take a dump on mainstream physics and all it has brought society"

The saddest part is that I don't think the artist that I love would agree with Haramein, or Janover if they were given the opportunity to experience the other side, real physics and it's amazing appeal. Yet others have experienced it, and some of them don't care for it, they would rather make up fantasy. Which goes directly against their message of "love and open-minded attitudes" because they can't think outside of the little box. Thankfully not all musicians I enjoy think like this and I am sure some of them recognize Haramein as a big giant fraud.

Anonymous said...

I have watched Nassim on stage and have seen his Event Horizons DVDs.
Human nature being what it is, rarely accepts new knowledge when it is first presented. Galileo demonstrated simply at the leaning tower that heavy objects don’t fall faster. What was always assumed was never tested until then and what was the reaction of the academics of the day? Politics and egos always get in the way of common sense. They walked away and taught the same old bad physics for another hundred years until they were all dead.
And do you know what….today not much has changed.
N A S A (never a straight answer) are only interested in their $16 billion per year funding and stubbornly stick to their face saving old paradigms. They will never admit to their past mistakes like adhering to their ridiculous dirty snowball comet model and that the universe is electrically neutral.
SOHO feeds are hurriedly switched off every time an electrical discharge occurs between comets and the sun just before impact.
Nassim should be allowed to be judged through proper pier review without the character assassinations.
There is merit in much of what he has to say. So what if it’s not perfect. Einstein made mistakes. Humans are prone to that sort of thing.

Bob said...

Haramein isn't presenting new knowledge, my friend. And he ain't no Galileo.

Galileo advanced humanity's understanding of motion when he proposed his principle of invariance in 1632. All subsequent science has acknowledged its brilliance and has built upon it. Even the most elementary student of physics cannot fail to appreciate it – it's undeniable and it's basic. Galileo was way ahead of his time.

Now look at Haramein's "revolutionary" idea that it's a lie to teach that the solar system orbits in a plane, it should be seen as a vortex. If Haramein had understood Galileo's invariance, he'd know immediately what nonsense this is.

People think Haramein is presenting a paradigm shift. Nope. Galileo presented a paradigm shift 380 years ago, and Haramein hasn't caught up with that yet! His thinking is trapped in pre-middle-age idea of absolute space and time. And if it sounds like 'common sense' to you, that's probably a good indication that you're trapped there too.

It's a joke to say he has anything new to say. Talking in clichés, stringing scientific-sounding words together to wow people, distorting current theories so that they appear to promise the cure for all mankind's needs, and mixing it all with spiritual mystical things... it's the same as every other fluffy scam artist since time began.

Charisma surrounded by gullibility isn't a new paradigm, it's a time-honored tradition.

You say that "Nassim should be allowed to be judged through proper pier review without the character assassinations." Yes indeed. This is precisely what has been taking place consistently for the last decade, as he's submitted paper after paper to peer-reviewed journal after peer-reviewed journal, and all have been rejected as worthless.

You're free to buy his line that the entire scientific community is wrong and he is right if you choose. It's the only line he's ever been able to give. I don't understand how that could strike anyone as remotely feasible.

But I know better than to underestimate the degree of blind attachment that a charismatic performer can inspire. Humans are prone to that sort of thing.

Anonymous said...

So Bob, thanx for that clever response.
Would you mind telling me exactly what rejected and worthless paper he received the physics award for.

Pete

Bob said...

Yes indeed. His 'Schwarzschild Proton' paper was voted by the attendees of a computing systems conference in Belgium as the best paper on "physics, quantum mechanics, relativity, field theory and gravitation" at that computing systems conference.

So it's an award for a paper that looks good to some non-physicists at a non-physics conference.

He may as well have taken it to a conference on flower-arranging and got the flower-arrangers to vote it as best physics paper there.

The paper has been shamelessly hyped and used to mislead people despite being straightforwardly flawed from start to finish.

I'm assuming that's the one you mean... it seems to be all he has to show for his "20 years of tireless dedication to his in depth research on unification" aside from a bunch of followers who don't understand any of the physics in his papers.

Anonymous said...

Thanx Bob,
You sure sound like you know a lot about standard physics.
Would you say that Nassim's major supporter Elizabeth Rauscher is as misguided as he is?

http://elizabethrauscher.com/

Regards,
Pete

Bob said...

I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about specific ideas or events. As I said in the article, I have no idea what goes on inside other people's heads. I've discussed Rauscher in other comments on this post and others, if you can be bothered to look.

Do you normally converse by asking questions and then utterly ignoring the responses? I don't see the point in that.

jcherpaw said...

Your statement is fairly accurate and i must admit, Destroyes MOST of my criticism...But what remains is the fact that The science, as you seem, or, rather: ---- the fantasy i have made up of the person i am imagining and projecting upon within my own head after reading a post by someone i have never met---is based soley upon the western paradigm, or world view. ( Yes, i have at least familiarized my mind with the History of Western Science.).


I therefore apologize, to the imagined personage (bob) for my overreaction to what seems to--- more accurately--- seemed to me, to be a species of reason which IS Arrogant...

I do not like misleading Pseudoscintific endeavours either...

What i was reacting to was some of the blanket statements about "people on the internet", your awareness of them, how they think..."how the mind works"...etc...



The underlying conclusions/assumptions/LOGIC (to my limited understanding ) could very much be simply be put as:
1) Science has conventions
2) Those who profess to speak on scientific subjects, such as physics had better know the Conventions of the physics.

Thus far, Bob, we are very much in agreement...

I thought i had found someone (who posted comments in the past) with a good sense of what was rational and (at least) reasonable...



I think it is very reasonable to assert that most discovery and subsequent developments in science have come about by accident:
The least of which is the discovery of Radiation (roughly-- 1900's?) and subsequent theory of modern physics itself, going as far back--- (oh i don't know)--- at least to Dalton and the rest of the proponents of the atomic model...(roughly---1600's?)...

Once again, I apologize for reacting to what seemed to me, to be arrogance...on the part of the person who posted.
I thought all reasoning included an "introduction", "body" and, "conclusion"...
I therefor retract my critical statement(s) and admit it/them to be outside the bounds of argumentation...
I would not want to offend any real or imagined person(s) or enitities, real or imagined...and will not waste any more effort on pointing out flaws that can only be internal and
therefor unwarranted.

No, i did not intend the question to be asked, and then post again without reading the response...It was accidentally posted.

Thank you for your honest responses, Bob...

Namaste

Jcherpaw

Anonymous said...

Yes Bob,
I did bother to read your comments about Elizabeth Rauscher.
My point is that she has an impressive resume when it comes to physics if you accept her CV on face value.Assuming her quals are genuine then surely only someone with more quals can pass judgement on her or her ideas.
How can anybody separate ideas and events from the people who manifest them?
You mentioned something about a 'conference on flower arranging' so 'a bunch of followers who don't understand any of the physics in his(NH) papers'........I assume you must have meant 'a bunch of flowers':)
Elizabeth Rauscher would make one hell of a florist don't you think Bob? :)
Regards,
Pete

Bob said...

Pete, I can appreciate that if you don't understand what is being talked about then you might feel it's right to give more time to someone with more qualifications.

However if you do understand what is being talked about, then you're more concerned with whether or not what is being said is bollocks.

Of course ideas can be separated from the people who 'manifest' them. If someone bases a theory on the fact that a proton has a mass of 885 million tons when it clearly doesn't (and all the other idiotic things he palms off on his audiences), then they're just talking bollocks - why should anyone care who's saying it?

Haramein talks bollocks. What he says is transparently and blatantly wrong. I've explained why, in a multitude of ways, in quite some detail, and I've made it as easy to follow as possible. That's as good as I can do.

If you'd prefer to focus on qualified individuals, then do note that the entire scientific community ignores and dismisses Haramein's decades of tireless "research" despite his massive publicity and all the papers he's submitted. The only exception is Rauscher who happens to be on his payroll.

She's certainly been a decent physicist in the past. She'd probably make a better florist now, that's true. :)

Anyway, you hang onto your idea that he could be onto something if you must. I'm not too concerned with anyone's over-attachments. My aim is simply to try to shed some light on what I can see is going on, for people who are able and willing to think. As I've said before, it's not a matter of opinion.

Anonymous said...

Thanx for that Bob,
I actually agree with you because even though I have had an extensive carrier in applied science spanning some 20 years I do have a problem accepting that a proton can have a mass of 885 million tons.
Even more intriguing is how Harramein can come to believe and accept his own calculation.
Having said that I do have a sharp brain capable of independent thought and critical analysis.
I cannot accept that mainstream science is completely free of 'bollocks syndrome', one example mentioned in my earlier blog about NASA.
Secondly pier review appears to have its fair share of critics because of the lack of independent scientists who are often paid by corporations to achieve a predetermined outcome.
A good example of this and definitely worth a read is:
http://www.jmccsci.com/PeerReviewSubPage.HTM
Look at the corruption that surfaced re climate scientists who fudged the data. The world's oceans have been cooling since late 2004.
Science can be little bit like a religion which produces lots of little believing textbook repeaters that blindly accept everything with which their high priest science professors indoctrinate them.
BIG BANG (BIG SCHMUCK) Maybe there is another cause for red shift other than a rapidly expanding universe. And unless we are the centre of the universe we would only see the red shift on one side, not in all directions.(obvious particle explosion physics).
It would be easier to believe in GOD than the Big Bang Theory (Bollocks)
Then Bob I'd like to have a bitch about mainstream 'smoozenews' media. You no doubt have heard the term 'conspiracy theorist' I would call myself a conspiracy factualist.
Fact:RE: Pentagon 9-11 attack. Titanium steel jet engines do not vapourise into thin air. This is bad physics.
Fact: Re WTC 7. Solid concrete steel buildings do not collapse at freefall speed unless by controlled demolition.
Fact: News Readers are not psychic and therefore cannot announce the collapse of a building (WTC 7) 20 minutes before it actually happened.
Cheers Bob........thought I'd give you some fat to chew on this time:)

Pete (down under)

Bob said...

Thanks Pete, but I have no intention of chewing on any more conspiracy theories, I've seen more than enough already.

Of course there will be scientists who get corrupted, and of course peer review isn't free from problems. But that's no excuse for making shit up, or defending people who do.

This isn't a forum for discussing the usual cliché roll-call of conspiracy crap. Given the actual perilous state of the world now and the urgency with which we need to understand it and work together, I find climate change denialists pretty sickening.

If you want insight into climate change denialism (I don't imagine you do, but if you did...) then watch a few of the videos by this guy. You can air your views over there.

Anonymous said...

Bob,
I am not a climate change denialist
Yes it's real but what if it was caused by the natural sun cycles which last 30 to 40 years.
As you would know phase lag in physics is the time period between cause and effect.
Put your hand in a pot of cold water with the heat turned on full and you're probably looking at a phase lag of around 5 min before you start to want to pull your hand out.
With the earth, the phase lag between cause and effect is 800 years. The heat comes first the CO2 comes 800 years later. The ocean is the biggest sink of CO2. Man's contribution to CO2 compared to what is released from the ocean is a footprint on the equator. Al Gore was caught deliberately moving the graphs to show instant cause and effect to push the global carbon tax.
Thanx Bob,

Pete
PS. I find it sickening to see so many gullible people sucked in by main stream media without ever questioning the evidence.
I stand by my 3 facts on 9-11 and I challenge anyone on the planet to contradict the physics. They can't.

Bob said...

Whatever.

I spent three years doing postgraduate research in environmental resources, questioning the evidence from as many angles as I could, and doing a huge amount of honest, careful and open-minded investigation in this area. But hey, call me gullible if you like.

You could at least have looked up what the term climate change denialist meant :-)

Anonymous said...

Hello Bob,

First, I'd like to sincerely thank you for putting the time and effort into fairly critiquing Nassim's theories and posting them on the internet. Having watched hours of video lectures by Nassim, I found his theories very compelling, but it was difficult to find anyone with any kind of physics background to take the time to seriously discuss them with me.

Also, like you, i don't believe it's fair to characterize Nassim as a charleton--although he is clearly misleading his audience, he is a magician who somehow genuinely believes in his own tricks. Have you ever seen the documentary 'Grizzly Man'? I believe Nassim suffers from the same type of mental illness (not that I'm a psychologist, but when the symptoms are this extreme even a laymen like myself can easily spot them). While Nassim's behaviour isn't as overtly self-destructive as Grizzly Man's, it's my opinion that he'll meet a similar fate if he is unable to come to grips with his limitations as a 'normal' human being.

That said, I believe main stream physics is also suffering from the same kind of Quixotism, albeit a much more subtle--but therefore much more insidious--form. "Dark matter", just for example, is clearly a deus ex machina....can God really be that bad of a writer? lol


Jason

Bob said...

Haha - thanks Jason! Grizzly Man was a great film -you're right, there are some strikingly similarities! :)

Regarding dark matter... I guess I don't see the problem. There's no reason why everything in the universe should be visible. We already know the universe is full of things that don't interact with electromagnetic radiation at all (neutrinos, for example). I think it's almost inevitable that there are other things out there that we can't see. We're just lucky that we have some way of detecting what appears to be a clear gravitational signature of some of it.

And dark energy too... terms representing dark energy fell right out of Einstein's general relativity equations as soon as he formulated them, and it was there until he decided it couldn't possibly be real and bundled it away. And now there it is, it seems, out there in space doing its stretchy stuff.

I think they're both fab.

(I'm probably one of a minority that likes dark energy though...)

The Prince of Centraxis said...

In your opening comments you defend physics with the unfortunate remark that the mass of the proton has been known for some time. It was recently discovered to be some 4% less than had been thought, turning many aspect of physics on their metaphorical ears.
When science is treated as a religion and held up as an authority in this manner it makes it very difficult to determine the truth. All new ground breaking theories meet with ridicule by those whose prime motive appears to be maintaining the purblind and egregious status quo that supports their own self image. The nuclear furnace model of stellar energy production, while convincing on the surface, has been found wanting. Proponents of various electric universe hypotheses have pointed out many glaring holes in the standard model and are formulating newer ones - as is N.H. in his own unique fashion.
Have you ever seen a clear picture of a black hole's accretion disk?

Bob said...

Hello Prince of Centraxis

Firstly, that wasn't the proton mass, that was something called its charge radius. (Protons don't have a well-defined radius, because they're quantum entities. The charge radius is a useful but elusive and fairly abstract parameter.)

The proton's mass is not abstract, it's just a plain old mass, but it's very consistently and reliably measured (in lots of different ways) to better than one part in ten million.

Haramein's theory claims the mass to be 53 thousand trillion trillion trillion times bigger than experiment! You can't compare this to a story in which two experiments give values differing by 4%.

Scondly, science should never be treated as a religion. It's a process of finding out what the world is like by bothering to look at it. How can that be a religion? Haramein doesn't look, he just fabricates. He has no equipment for looking at protons. And he hasn't bothered to learn what the people who do look at protons have found out. He's just made it up.

Thirdly, it's simply not true to say that all new theories meet with ridicule. There may well be skepticism and even some cynicism towards some perfectly valid theories for some time, because scientists are human beings. But if the theory has any merit, there will also be many early adopters, and attitudes will change. Good theories are never ridiculed by the whole of science for years.

Haramein's theories have never been taken remotely seriously by any scientist who is not on his payroll, even after decades of publicity.

It's nothing to do with image. Haramein's ideas simly fail on every possible level as a theory. I'll say exactly what I mean by that, and I challenge you to dispute any of it:

1. His ideas are very clearly fabricated with a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter and a complete absence of supporting evidence;

2. they give no new conclusions that have been (or even could be) tested by observation to support them as descriptions of nature; and

3. they involve appalling disagreements with straightforward observable facts of nature, almost as far from reality as it's possible to be.

Absolutely everything is pointing against them. Yet still people are defend them for no reason at all.

And I do know why people defend them. But, seriously, being impressed by a presentation is not grounds for believing something to be true. It really isn't.

Finally, I could give you plenty of reasons as to why the 'electric universe' model is garbage, and even discuss your points about the standard model and black holes if you like...

But first, Prince of Centraxis, if you think you have a point to make regarding N.H., then show me that you've read what I've just written to you, and if you have real reasons to disagree with anything I've said please say what they are (ideally without going off the subject or inventing subjective things about me). Show me that you're able to think objectively for yourself. And show me that you have some way other than prejudice for distinguishing truth from falsehood. That sound fair?

Someone from Down under, who has an IQ of 130 :) said...

Wow, I thought I'd come back on here and have a look the comments… and it seems that a few people on here are arguing climate, 9-11, gees, I don't get it. I thought this blog debunked Haramein...warranted he does throw unfounded religious history theories, Physics and any other hyperbole all together to make crazy man stew for a few new ageists to eat with gusto...anyway I enjoy the break down of physics on here and unfortunately people who don't have focus that is needed to read, read ,read and then look at the facts objectively, will find it all a bit hard to fathom – it’s way more fun to google one of Bobs facts you don’t understand and try and disprove it... believing Haramein is way easier, he talks in a language that I guess " resonates" for some....a small percentage of the population will be taken in... but the rest of us, with some intellect, who live in the real world, and keep clear of the disco biscuits will ignore all the Harameins the world has to offer....but it is still fun to read this blog, as Bob has done a sterling job of trying to re-educating the few who can comprehend.. there will always be a few who cannot.

Bob said...

Thanks, Someone!

Did you go to any of his recent gatherings in Oz about changing the world so that everyone believes in Haramein?

I guess not :-) It's kind of a shame that he only ever gets to meet people who have so little ability to think for themselves that they'll pay money to meet him...

Anonymous said...

Your conclusions are as lame as NH's. The difference is that NH's ideas have potential. Your work has none. Don't quit your day job.

1. His ideas are very clearly fabricated with a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter and a complete absence of supporting evidence;

A: They are not CLEARLY fabricated by any stretch. The guy made a working assumption.

2. they give no new conclusions that have been (or even could be) tested by observation to support them as descriptions of nature; and

A: Not yet would be the answer. If his theory is correct then have faith that experiments to validate will follow. The guy said it's a work in progress.

3. they involve appalling disagreements with straightforward observable facts of nature, almost as far from reality as it's possible to be.

A: Quantum theory is not "straight-forward" to experimentally test.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -- Einstein.

Does Occam's Razor apply to QFT, QED or QM, for that matter? Yes - but only if you know those disciplines inside out - which means, in general, No, it does not apply.

-----

At the basis of N.H.'s argument is that there is a balance of forces s.t. it is possible that a proton can be massive without being observable in our frame of reference.

Who cares if the proton is massive? In our frame of reference, NH correctly surmises that we would not observe it given said assumption.

NH makes the assumption that elementary particles are themselves powered by "blackholes" as per the theory underlying the Schwarzschild radius. His assumption allows an hypothesis into the geometry of sub-space.

The main arguments against NH's current work is his lack of treatment of Chandrashekar Limit and (as you mentioned) the experimental validation of his core assumption. The former is hard to prove. In terms of modern physics, the latter cannot be completed in less than a few decades, at best.

Both the Schwarzschild radius and Chandrashekar Limit needed nearly a century to even begin good empirical validation. Both are considered to be works in progress.

Fair enough that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But I would summarize your critique as: She doth protest too much.

You are off-base on the theory (over-complicating it for no reason other than to light your own fire) and your critique of the person is mean-spirited, baseless and pure rubbish.

The funny part is that I don't even like the guy. But I dislike you more.

--MSA, Toronto

Bob said...

Thanks, MSA from Toronto. Love you too.

Not sure what to say, other than virtually every one of your sentences is either meaningless or plain wrong. (Apart from the last one, I guess.)

Do you believe you know what you're talking about?

Pick any one of those sentences and I'll tell you exactly what I mean. If you like. There's no point me trying to respond to all that.

AP said...

@MSA from Toronto

I don't see how you can say this sentence "The main arguments against NH's current work is his lack of treatment of Chandrashekar Limit and (as you mentioned) the experimental validation of his core assumption. The former is hard to prove. In terms of modern physics, the latter cannot be completed in less than a few decades, at best" (which is partially correct, but there are many more arguments against NH works as well buddy)

and at the same time make a statement as facile as this one

"Who cares if the proton is massive? In our frame of reference, NH correctly surmises that we would not observe it given said assumption"

Who cares if the proton is massive? Well, I do for one, and so do many other rational minded folks. I am not a physicist, and without the mathematical background and particle physics training as soon as Bob had pointed out to me that there is a MAJOR discrepancy with that (and the fact NH uses the Compton wavelength as the radius of a proton r =1.32 fm) I had to follow up with actual research.

Which I did, then what I found was the exact opposite of one of your statements which reads:

"They are not CLEARLY fabricated by any stretch. The guy made a working assumption" (You)

I don't know how you can say they are not fabricated when he is making up information which directly contradicts 1+1 and basic proven laws within the science of physics.

Lastly, your claim that Bob protests to much is rather silly seeing as how he is just answering your criticisms of his original work on debunking NH.

@"Someone from Down under, who has an IQ of 130"

If you'll read my post above, you can see a lot of comments regarding the "jam band" music scene and Nassim followers.


I think the disco biscuits are a joke, however there are many jam bands I enjoy, and I am fed up with this notion among Jamie Janover(Nassim promoter and famous musician)and his type that one must also subscribe the worthless pseudo science if one enjoy's jam bands. I am a musician, I love that scene, and I am strong about preaching the opposite way.

Unfortunately Haramein draws in a HUGE crowd this way, playing off the naive willingness to "give someone a chance" which eventually turns into " give someone your money"

AP said...

(cont)

@MSA Toronto

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -- Einstein

I find that many of the pseudo science enthusiast (perhaps such as yourself Mr. MSA Toronto?) like to often use these types of quotes applying them to anything and everything which they remotely could be connected to, it is quite awkward really.

I think what Professor Einstein was trying to say was simply something to the effect of:
-when we discover or make new observation, the mathematics used in the past can be always may not work any longer, and we should always incorporate and open mindedness towards changing our models and our maths when they are not fitting the observations. However, what I don't think Einstein was giving you was a license to dissolve a hundred years of good strong solid mathematical prediction backed by rigorous experimentation and observation into a loosely linked pile of word soup!

Your other comment:

"NH makes the assumption that elementary particles are themselves powered by "blackholes" as per the theory underlying the Schwarzschild radius. His assumption allows an hypothesis into the geometry of sub-space"

While yes, NH does make this assumption, his assumption does NOT allow an hypothesis (or a credible decent one at the very least) into the geometry of sub-space" In fact I am not even sure that really makes any sense whatsoever!

If you read the definition of a Schwarzschild radius, study the material contained with the concept then I don't see how there is any conclusion you can come to which shows you that a proton or any elementary or sub-atomic particle is powered by a blackhole" There are so many questions which arise that NH has not even attempted to answer,nor does he poses the capability.

The theory underlying the Schwarzschild radius does not allow for elementary particles to each be powered by their own personal black hole. Where are these super mini black holes which according to Nassim does not evaporating instantaneously but rather sustains itself indefinitely. A "mini-black hole" the size of a proton would not stick around for very long at all. And they would not be able to sustain the energy to grow. I really do not see how a proton can actually be having a black hole mechanism powering it!

Nassim also states the Earth has it's even bigger (supervisor black hole) at it's center, and that black hole oversees the little black holes that make up every single protons in our bodies.....I guess. It all starts sounding kind of whacky. For the Earth's gravity to become powerful enough for collapse towards singularity to occur, all of the Earth's mass would have to be squeezed into a volume or space of about a 7mm-10mm area, about the size of a thumb tack!

But your telling me, that his hypothesis is not a fabricated stretch?

Revlin said...

Hi Bob,

Just finding about Nassim today. How exciting! So far I've spent the most time learning about him from your blog posts. He clearly appreciates your efforts to further publicize his work. I've watched a bit of youtube and am now downloading a torrent of his DVD set. No, I will probably never buy it, nor do I tend to buy anything which has already been digitized, just to give you a hint of my character.

Btw, do you have a theory of everything?

I found that video on the casimir effect quite interesting. One idea that came to me as I read this response:

"The Casimir effect is very very tiny... but if you had plates that were large enough and close enough together, you could use the tiny force that's pulling the plates together to do some work, maybe drive a little dynamo, charge a tiny battery or something. But then you're left with two large metal plates stuck together, and you need to put at least that much energy back in just to pull them apart."

It seems like the geometry of the situation (i.e. the "massless" planar plates placed face to face, in a void) would have a determining effect on the kind of movement which is possible due to the force of the vacuum. Have you explored other geometrical configurations in which this effect can be observed?

And if you have, is it from these further explorations and observations that you've made these statements about the impossibility of performing perpetual (or even simply useful) work on the basis of such configurations?

For instance what would happen in the instance of 3 plates, placed face to face to face to face, within a hollow toroid (the last face in that list is the opposite side of the first plate, completing a cycle). There is no friction between the edge of each plate and the inner surface of the toroid. Now there are 3 vacuum spaces between the plates with 3 different volumes because the plates are unevenly, but not randomly placed. The volumes are set to have whole-number simple ratios to each other, in other words they have have harmonic relationships. Would the infinity of waves potentially present in the largest volume be bigger than the infinity of waves potentially present in the smallest volume. If so, the casimir effect would be observable no? And how would that play out in each of the 3 volumes? If no, maybe this configuration would be entirely ineffective in manifesting the behavior of the casimir effect.

I think I get it, your point about the incompetence of someone who would presume to expose himself on the public stage. Personally, I'm able to look at such figures, as well as figures like Einstein and Bell, and consider them performers and perceive their output is art. Indeed, that is how I see your blog, as well. The comments are magnificent.

Thank you for being.

Revlin

Revlin said...

"But has he actually addressed the criticisms that I've raised? Surely, somewhere in all that work, he must have? Help me out here if you think I'm missing something"

Hi, again, Bob. I'd like to do you one good turn by highlighting something you may have missed:

"I used oversimplified statements in the paper assuming that physicists could fill in the blanks and would already know about the issues related to the vacuum density and the cosmological constant, among others - please read carefully:

S.E. Rugh and H. Zinkernagely,
"The Quantum Vacuum and the Cosmological Constant Problem"
at: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000398/00/cosconstant.pdf

In any case, perhaps the fundamental concepts I wished to convey with the Schwarzschild proton approach were missed. So let me restate it as clearly and simply as possible.

Although the current mainstream value given for the mass of the proton is 1.672621637(83)x10-24 gm (or 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram) what the gentleman fails to mention is discussed below.

Coulomb repulsion between protons is very large

The electrostatic repulsion of two protons confined to within a nucleon radius (as they are when in an atomic nucleus) is very large.

Atomic Stability and the "Strong" Force

In fact, a force of at least 38 to 39 orders of magnitude stronger than their mutual gravitational attraction is postulated to counter this repulsion. Something like this is required for the nuclei of atoms to be stable. The postulated force is called the "strong" force and is fully accepted in the "standard model". It is sometimes estimated to be as much as 38 to 41 orders larger than the gravitational attraction. Here is a reference to the typically lowest value of 1038 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, but note very specifically these disclaimers just above the table.

Both magnitude ("relative strength") and "range", as given in the table, are meaningful only within a rather complex theoretical framework. It should also be noted that the table below lists properties of a conceptual scheme that is still the subject of ongoing research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction#Overview

Here again in an academic site the relative strength is given as 1039 orders of magnitude.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html

However, these other typical academic websites give a value of relative strength of 1041 orders of magnitude.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/FundamentalForces.html
http://www.windows2universe.org/kids_space/forces.html

It is crucial to note that these wide variations occur because the standard model here becomes very fuzzy. It fails to specify a source for such a force and the current schemes for its mechanisms are extremely tentative. In fact, there is no analytical solution to LQCD, no mathematical proof that the current standard model scheme, which includes gluons and the color force, is anywhere correct. It is often described as the most difficult and obscure force to calculate. This is why you find these sinuous statements on the Wiki QCD page:

Since the force between color charges does not decrease with distance, it is believed that quarks and gluons can never be liberated from hadrons. "


There is more @http://theresonanceproject.org/sp_manifesto.html

Just wanted to see your reaction to that first bit.

Peace
Revlin

PS Have you given any thought to quantum foam? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

Bob said...

Thanks for your thoughts, Revlin. I'm glad to hear that you've found something of interest here.

I'll try to answer your questions, though I have to confess I'm not entirely clear what you're asking.

"Do you have a theory of everything?" - no. (That's an easy one. Why do you ask?)

"Have you explored other geometrical configurations in which [the Casimir] effect can be observed?" - The Casimir effect is only very slightly affected by the shape of the apparatus, as I understand it.

"Is it from these further explorations and observations that you've made these statements about the impossibility of performing perpetual (or even simply useful) work on the basis of such configurations?" - No, it's from my understanding of the quantum electrodynamics (QED) that lies behind the Casimir effect, and the fact that all observations of the Casimir effect have been entirely in accordance with this theory. Of course you could ask what would make me so sure that QED is all there is to it... I don't know that I can answer that in a straightforwardly convincing way. But please see here for a brief selection of some of the latest of the continual stream of experiments over the last fifty years by people trying extremely hard to find even the tiniest discrepancy between QED predictions and experiment. It's proved to be an extremely powerful and reliable perspective on nature.

"For instance what would happen in the instance of 3 plates, placed face to face to face to face, within a hollow toroid..." - sorry, I can't picture what you're describing there. The reasons why no net extraction of energy can be extracted from the vacuum are far more fundamental than geometry of the apparatus.

If you want to extract energy from the vacuum, sling a net around the core of a galaxy or two in a neighbouring supercluster. You can then use the cosmological expansion of space as a limitless source of energy. It's not a very practical suggestion, I know - if the rope were an inch thick, just to reach the nearest supercluster you'd need more rope than the mass of the Earth. But at least it doesn't rely on fabricated laws of physics for which there isn't a shred of evidence - which is a substantial advantage for any project.

My top tip. Avoid disappointment by not placing ultimate reliance on pretend laws of physics that some entertaining dude made up. Even if they look cool.

"Personally, I'm able to look at such figures, as well as figures like Einstein and Bell, and consider them performers and perceive their output is art." - that sounds fabulous. It's a great perspective to take.

Some people also care deeply about it as science, as a genuine quest to uncover profound truths about the universe. To those people, it matters a great deal whether the quest is genuine or fake. To those who wish to be entertained and inspired, perhaps that matters less.

Thank you for being. - and thank you for engaging.

Bob said...

Regarding your second comment…

Thanks for the quote, but I didn't miss that. I read everything Nassim wrote. As I said, I didn't see anything that addresses any of the criticisms that I've raised. Forgive me but I don't see what is relevant in any of the section that you've quoted.

Let's be clear about one thing: there are things that science has not found any answer to. The point of science is to explore the unexplored and see what can be found. It's still doing this! Obviously there are unsolved problems. It's not a revelation to present a list.

My point is that this is not an excuse to make up some naive answer and pretend that you've solved it without having a shred of supporting evidence, and to raise substantial funding from that basis. That is disreputable and fraudulent from any perspective, as I'm sure you'd agree.

But do tell me more. If you think anything in your quote addresses any of my criticisms of his work, please explain precisely what you think it is - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

"PS Have you given any thought to quantum foam?" - not much, no. It's one way of attempting to visualise a quantum theory of gravity. It has no relevance at all to anything we can actually observe in the universe.

This is in sharp contrast to theories like QED and general relativity, which have been tested repeatedly in countless situations over decades, and found to be in consistent agreement, with astonishing accuracy.

Quantum gravity theories such as spacetime foam are of interest from the point of view of unification attempts and speculations about the very early universe. Which is enough to make them fascinating in their own right. But they are constructed from highly abstract mathematical concepts, and no-one has yet found a single means of comparing them with reality. Hopefully that day will come... until then, they're just suggestions.

Revlin said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmer_series#Balmer.27s_formula

Why does the Rydberg constant for hydrogen, as used in the Rydberg formula specified to compute the Balmer spectral line series for Hydrogen assume an infinitely heavy nucleus? And why is the output of this formula congruent to observed results given this assumption?

As to the previous quote, it's the first page of about half a dozen in which NH address those of your concerns which were relevant to his assertions about physical reality. I tried to quote the entirety of that section of his address, but blogger would not let me post so many characters. It seemed an appropriate response to your request, "Help me out here if you think I'm missing something"

You address a few points in this section and ignore most of it, without attempting to provide an alternative model. I suppose you would point me to other persons' representations of models of atomic action, but I'm more interested in your own ability to present a concise model, even you were to rely on other sources for your ideas (which we are all doing anyway). So far you have demonstrated that you can refute a single point as being meaningless. You, however, have not demonstrated that you can present a coherent and consistent model yourself. In other words, can you teach us what you understand (and with adequate effect)?

Peace
Revlin

Revlin said...

"It's true that the standard model doesn't predict the mass of the proton – at least not without first knowing the masses of quarks. It's true that it bases its predictions on a renormalisation process that some see (or let's be honest, some saw several decades ago) as controversial. But does any of this excuse Haramein's theory from the requirement that it should make some sense and relate to the real world? Sorry, but no.

The thing about the measured mass of the proton is that it's always equal to the measured mass of the proton. It's an exceptionally precisely known and unerringly consistent value, and whether or not the standard model predicts it, all theories of physics have to use it."


Something I find confusing about the mass of the proton:

"The proton is composed of three fundamental particles: two up quarks and one down quark" -wikipedia

and

"However, it was not until 1995 that the top quark was finally observed, also by the CDF[40] and DØ[41] teams at Fermilab.[5] It had a mass much greater than had been previously expected[42]—almost as great as a gold atom.[43]"

Could you explain to me how two of a particle as heavy as a gold atom (3.2945054507505345e-25 kg) combines to form a hadron with a mass of 1.6726216370000001e-27 kg.

I know its all complex QED stuff, but could you break it down for me?

Peace
Revlin

Bob said...

Hi Revlin

"Why does the Rydberg constant for hydrogen, as used in the Rydberg formula specified to compute the Balmer spectral line series for Hydrogen assume an infinitely heavy nucleus?" - because it was a very early attempt to find a pattern in some spectral lines. The hydrogen nucleus is 1,836 times heavier than an electron, which means it hardly moves as the electron orbits, so he simplified by assuming it never moves.

It was a good place to start. The tiny correction from the motion of the nucleus was calculated very shortly afterwards, but as I'm sure you understand, it doesn't help to throw more complicated equations at people who are trying to learn something. And lots of other even tinier corrections were made later, such as fine structure, lamb shift, zeeman effect, stark effect, hyperfine structure, and so on... many of which rely on quantum theory, which didn't exist in 1888.

It's not because they're stupid, and it's not because there's some conspiracy.

Regarding the Haramein quote (well, I say Haramein, I know he paid some guys on his team to write that for him):

I'm not trying to provide an alternative model. I'm explaining as best I can my reasons for asserting that Haramein is a fraud. If you want to learn some science, we have a free world, with some great educational institutions and resources, libraries, teachers... you can find out what the universe is like in as much detail as you wish. Ok, there are some less good teachers and so forth, but if you persist, you can find something that works for you.

If you have genuine questions, I will try to answer them, but there's no way in which I'm trying to be a substitute for an education. I can't teach physics by sitting here typing into a comments box.

The point is, as I said before, one of the most important aspects of science is that we must be honest about what we do not know.

Because that is the only way we can find out anything new.

Haramein is not honest about what he does not know. He makes it all up.

I can see why people might prefer to believe that Haramein's sparkly simplistic version of reality is better than having to work at getting an education. Maybe that's a nice feeling for them. But I do think it's a shame also, if they settle for that. Because it's fabricated, it's invented, it's untrue.

Sure, if you prefer it, keep it. But as far as science goes the guy's a fraud.

"You address a few points in this section and ignore most of it" - yes, because I don't see that any of it is relevant to Haramein's theories. He's dug out some fairly standard physics info, and a few links, none of which I have any real problems with. They're nothing to do with Haramein's work. I don't see what point you (or he) is trying to make there.

But please, go ahead, choose one of the things he's said that you think is significant. Tell me how you think it has anything to do with any criticism I've made, and I'll try my best.

Bob said...

"Could you explain to me how two of a particle as heavy as a gold atom combines to form a hadron with a mass of a proton" - I think you've confused up with top. They have silly names.

The top quark has a very high mass. But the quarks in a proton are up quark and the down quark, which do not.

Revlin said...

Just realized something about your response to my questions (plural) about the balmer series; you only answered the first question.

So to repeat: "And why is the output of this formula congruent to observed results given this assumption?" meaning the assumption about the infinite mass of the nucleus of Hydrogen (btw, does "infinitely heavy" refer to mass or weight?).

And to add on based on your previous response: if "lots of other even tinier corrections were made later, such as fine structure, lamb shift, zeeman effect, stark effect, hyperfine structure" and so on, why is the Rydberg constant still as it was in 1888 and still accurate in predicting the resulting wavelengths? In other words if one of it's principle assumptions is wrong, shouldn't an observation of the phenomena prove that it's wrong?

What does it say about our models if they can somehow mathematically be shown to be ineffective models, and yet show perfect ability to predict the measurement of the phenomenon to which they are applied?

This leads me to the realization that according to current theoretical physics, or atleast what you have to say about it,the Rydberg constant is wrong.

Whilst according to experimental observation, in other words "reality" as experienced by a keen and well equipped observer, the Rydberg constant is right.

Isn't that weird?

Bob said...

Hi Revlin.

"Infinitely heavy" is just a shorthand for the simplifying approximation that the electron carries all the orbital energy. In reality, the electron carries more than 99.94% of the orbital energy, but not 100%. If the nucleus had infinite mass, it would be exactly 100%.

The Rydberg constant doesn't reproduce the wavelengths of the hydrogen spectrum.

It's an approximate formula, and it reproduces an approximation of the spectrum.

The more you refine the formula (using known physics), the closer the predictions get to the measured wavelengths.

If you have genuine questions, I'm happy to answer them. But if you just want to jump up and down on atomic physics and declare it all wrong, you really ought to learn atomic physics first. Otherwise you're just misunderstanding it and then ridiculing your own misunderstanding.

Revlin said...

Can you back this up with a reference, citation, example, etc.?

"The Rydberg constant doesn't reproduce the wavelengths of the hydrogen spectrum.

It's an approximate formula, and it reproduces an approximation of the spectrum.

The more you refine the formula (using known physics), the closer the predictions get to the measured wavelengths."


According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmer_series) the Balmer formula is an empirical equation, meaning one that is derived from "information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment." (also from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical).

So we are starting with the measured wavelengths of the spectral line emissions of the hydrogen atom and deducing a formal model from those specific experimental results. The prediction output from this formula is simply a recreation of the quantities measured in the original observation, not a prediction of new phenomena.

My point being, is it not strange that a prior observation can lead to a model which will effectively predict the re-occurrence of that observation and yet later come to be labeled untrue, through the further expansion of formal understanding? In other words, the model can be "real" (as in empirically experienced), but potentially "not true" (as in logically excluded).

"If you have genuine questions, I'm happy to answer them. But if you just want to jump up and down on atomic physics and declare it all wrong, you really ought to learn atomic physics first. Otherwise you're just misunderstanding it and then ridiculing your own misunderstanding."

Here we see an example of you losing your cool and subsequently making stuff up. No where in my comments have I denounced atomic physics. Clearly I have expressed misunderstandings and will continue to do so, but if there is any one ridiculing the act of misunderstanding, then they are missing the point entirely. Misunderstanding is an opportunity to have an experience of Understanding, not a target of ridicule. So far you have demonstrated a complete ineptitude for facilitating learning. You seek to spread illumination, but you have no skill for it, so all you've produced is confusion and irresolvable contradiction, as well as some bad vibes among the tribe of which you, too, are a member.

Bob said...

Ah Revlin. Don't pretend that I'm attacking you.

I've taken the trouble to answer all your questions as best I can, in quite some detail. I think I've been rather patient and gracious, given the confrontational stance you've taken.

I referred to the fact that rather than asking for clarification on something you don't understand, you're stating it as if you've already made up your mind and then saying "This leads me to the realization that according to current theoretical physics is wrong."

I don't really understand what leads people to make their mind up about something they only have a gut feeling of, and then declare it as a conclusion.

If you're already making your mind up before you've even asked the question, then it seems rather a waste of time. Do you think I'm losing my cool if I point that out? I don't really understand that.

As I said, nothing I can say in comments on a blog can replace learning science. If you'd prefer a Haramein education - which is to simplify everything into false stories that make people feel nice, and make-believe that actually bothering to study anything properly is a waste of time - then that's a choice you're very welcome to make. It would be a shame, but there's nothing I can do about it.

All I want to do is present what I understand for those who are interested. It is just a blog, after all.

Bob said...

Just in case you are actually interested in the Rydberg constant, I'll try to clarify.

The quantum theory of the atom of the 1920s predicts almost perfectly the structure of several atomic spectra such as hydrogen, to astonishing accuracy, down to the very tiniest details.

Rydberg spotted that there was a relationship between the various wavelengths of the spectral lines in the visible region of the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom back in the 1880s, long before any physical reasons for it were understood. (This was long before the discovery of electrons or photons, or even atoms.)

The numbers followed a pattern, and he spotted the pattern. That's all. He didn't "deduce a model" - he had no idea why the numbers came out with that pattern.

When the first quantum theory of the atom came along, the reason for this pattern was derived directly from the theory.

The simplest way of deriving Rydberg's formula, which can be found in quantum mechanics textbooks, ignores the motion of the nucleus (by pretending it has an infinite mass, so it never moves), and this generates an approximate formula. This is accurate to better than one part in a thousand. Bohr figured this out in 1913 using his first quantum model of the atom (the 'old' quantum theory).

An much more accurate derivation includes the motion of the nucleus. The number that Rydberg had found from his experiments was found to be a direct result of known physics and known physical values:

R = μ.e²/(8ε₀²h³c)

The number μ is a parameter called the 'reduced mass', which is a combination of the masses of the electron and nucleus. With this new value of the Rydberg constant, the quantum theory reproduced Rydberg's results perfectly.

So now let me be clear... when I say perfectly, I mean the theory reproduced what was observed in the spectrum of hydrogen as accurately as it could be measured at the time.

Very shortly later, however, more accurate measurements could be made, and tiny line structures were found in the spectrum - various tiny shifts and splittings and effects that I mentioned in my earlier comment. At the same time, quantum theory was being developed, and one by one the reasons for every one of these tiny structures became clear.

The agreement was reached not by being fitted from the results, but directly from the sophisticated quantum theory of the mid 1920s, by simply incorporating the physics of electromagnetism as it was understood from the 19th century.

Rydberg didn't have a model. Bohr had a model (now known as the 'old quantum theory'), but he knew it was incomplete. The quantum theory of the 1920s figured out virtually everything else in the hydrogen spectrum. Even the most detailed 'hyperfine structure' was figured out by 1924.

There have been later refinements to quantum theory relevant to the spectrum of the hydrogen atom, such as the nuclear quadrupole moment, the Dirac equation, and culminating in the 1950s with the full quantum electrodynamics, and each of these applications of deep theoretical physics principles has made the agreement between theory and experiment all the more precise.

These developments relied throughout on three tenets:

1. rigorously following through the logic and the mathematics of the simplest and most beautiful theories we have, and

2. testing everything by actually bothering to go and find out what the spectrum is like, using incredibly creative methods to increase the precision and look deep into the heart of whatever is being studied.

3. genuine, honest seeking after truth and the human longing to understand and to communicate.

The full story, and the full quantum theory, is one of the most beautiful and profound things that humanity has ever achieved. Virtually all who have studied it in depth are deeply moved by what was achieved, particularly what was revealed during the mid 1920s and still holds true to this day.

Bob said...

By the way, there's an excellent history of quantum mechanics in this book by Manjit Kumar if you ever want to know more. All the characters involved in the major discoveries are there, as the truly remarkable, passionate, flawed human beings they were, along with their individual and collective struggles to come to terms with the astonishing new world they were uncovering.

There are some descriptions of the physics involved, but without the mathematics and logical structure that lies at its heart. Mainly it's a history, and a detective story of the nature of reality.

I thought it was wonderful, anyway.

AP said...

Relvin dude-

I have been sitting here, reading in my spare time this conversation going back and forth between you two.

And several things are apparent to me.

1) Why should Bob need to back anything up man? These are known facts, get with the program. I am not saying that anything Bob declares is fact, but he is showing you all the nuances involved in how he makes his statements.....I don't understand your logic bro.

2) You are seemingly somewhat educated in these concepts within physics, you talking about Rydberg constant, spectra of Hydrogen atom, and deducing complex models from the observations and experimental results of the spectral emissions of an hydrogen atom. So using electron microscopy and splitting the atom, putting together QCD, QED etc....and then having a robust set of equations which not only measures to a high degree of accuracy events and occurrences in astrophysics using relativity, but also building a major portion of the last 50 years of technological growth on these models and theories as well. All of these 'theories' have been verified and to the highest degree of accuracy by the experiments right?

3) What I don't understand is people (like you) exhibit this type of behavior which is very much like my middle school students, questioning everything single thing with "why why why" simply because you have been mouth to do it with.

So fine....of course you are welcome to do as you wish, and think as you wish. But then the strangest part of this story is, what your willing to put in place of these experiments that have been done to a high degree of accuracy. While yes, they may not be the absolute end all say all of how the Universe works.....they are the closest thing anybody as come up with right???

I will answer that for you.....YES! So then why on Earth do you go trying to place Nassim's "work" in that place and say there is room for it when


A) He rejects most if not all of the results those experiments provide society with.

B) He sure as hell doesn't do his own experiments to replace any of the 100+ years of work which he constantly insults.

C)He never will do experiments to back up what he says, because even if he wanted to, he doesn't have the means, the money or the know-how to reproduce this type of work

Only so much can be done only using theoretical physics without any experimentation to back it up. This is especially true if you are going to discount all the previous work done within the subject matter simply because it doesn't include cool fractals and the Yi Chin along with some UFO stories lol.....


So my statement to you is:

If you are going to claim Haramein is providing a Unified Theory and Bob is not....so therefore Haramein shouldn't be antagonized by Bob.....

Then at the very LEAST show us what this Unified Field Theory is that Haramein has provided.

Because I don't see one, all I see is a power point presentation with images I can make on Mathematica computer software.

Anonymous said...

Ahhh Jam Bandits, Disco Bicuits, 911and the love/hate confusion of the Haramein..someone from downunder with an IQ of 130, feels like they have eaten a funny mushroom and waved a glow stick to the electronic beats of Harameins proton theories...

@ Bob, I had no idea that there was any events for Haramein in OZ, but to be honest there are a few alloy foil hat wearing, casualties running around Byron Bay and Mullimbimbi, so it's not that hard to find followers here-- the shrooms grow wild in the Tropical North you see :D

muzuzuzus said...

I haven't read all the comments here yet but was inspired to comment after reading Bob's advice to Anonnymous--who passionatley wants to expose Nassim, even gettin him busted--to rather just be cool and ask QUESTIONS, and in this way the charlatan loses cool! This is a very skillful way to expose author-ity (authority can mask itself in many ways)in that it reveals to people that the Emperor aint wearing any clothes.
BUT I want to say this--IN exposing people like Nassim, it is important not to also look with critical eye and questioning our accepted science which has 'peer review' etc. That can be a trap also. We have to question everything, agreed.
For example, Hasish oil is upposedly be really helpful for people with cancer, but our culture makes it a crime to acquire this help! THIS oppression in our 'scientific age' is odd right? That plants that grow from earth are made illegal is irrational. But that is so and needs questioning

ALSo Ayahuasca, and other entheogens have greatly helped people spiritually and physically, but they are illegal in the U.S.--a country which promotes the 'age of science and technology' as the major superpower. So something is wrong with this shit, right?

A BIG reason why people will be attracted to the likes of Nassim is because of this. They do not trust much of established science because they see it as mecnhaistic (not open to the understanding of soul/spirit), and also very much bought by corporative power--as are the governments. So hence any 'cool' dude with a Burning Man hairstyle talking 'far out science' is goona be an Attractor for people pissed off with the state of things!

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 for putting in the effort to refute Haramein publicly, 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.

muzuzuzus said...

"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."

""The main point of Laing's attack was that science, as it is practiced today, has no way of dealing with consciousness, or with experience, values, ethics, or anything referring to quality. "This situation derives from something that happened in European consciousness at the time of Galileo and Giordano Bruno", Laing began his argument. "These two men epitomize two paradigms - Bruno, who was tortured and burned for saying that there were infinite worlds; and Galileo, who said that the scientific method was to study this world as if there were no consciousness and no living creatures in it. Galileo made the statement that only quantifiable phenomena were admitted to the domain of science. Galileo said: "Whatever cannot be measured and quantified is not scientific"; and in post-Galilean science this came to mean: "What cannot be measured and quantified is not real." This has been the most profound corruption from the Greek view of nature as physis, which is alive, always in transformation, and not divorced from us. Galileo's programme offers us a dead world: Out go sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell, and along with them have since gone esthetic and ethical sensibility, values, quality, soul, consciousness, spirit. Experience as such is cast out of the realm of scientific discourse. Hardly anything has changed our world more during the past four hundred years than Galileo's audacious program. We had to destroy the world in theory before we could destroy it in practice."
(Uncommon Wisdom: Conversations with remarkable people, Fritjof Capra, page 139)"

Bob said...

Thanks John! :)

Bob said...

Muzu - you seem to be intent on railing against your own caricatures, which is rather silly.

I hope you get to meet some scientists some day, and get to know them as human beings. They're not what you think they are. They're not unfeeling, conscienceless, amoral soulless automatons. If you want to make a point, you'll have to learn to be a little less bigoted and a little less ridiculous.

muzuzuzus said...

Oh Bob. So you dont like what me and R.D.Laing think so you try and puff your chest up--come back with clever-sounding shit and.......
You are becoming tiresome. AND predictable

Bob said...

You want to spout your prejudices on other people's pages without anyone disagreeing. Of course. My apologies. Do carry on old chap.

muzuzuzus said...

'spout my prejudices'---I question 'established science'. Your position seems to be the investigation of people like Nassim, and aether physics etc but presume that established science and education are totally unchallengeable and the sun shines out of their arses?
I dont. I am both interested in your challenge against Nassim, but I also need the freedom to express what I feel without being put-down for not being scientific enough

R.D.Laing was a very intelligent man, and knew what the abuses of 'science' does to people's souls. That was what he is talking about. But you apparently see no value at all in what he says (although it was meant for the other participlant who implied that all was hunky dory in 'established science')--But you attack my posting it using ad hominem

I am used to this from 'scientific' types. The treatment I received at Richard Dawkins forums was unbelievable--total abuse. This smacks to me of fundamental religion whereby noone DARE even question the 'faith'--because it is the 'truth'. Yet as you said, you do not understand consciousness scientifically!

Bob said...

Er... nope, that's not my position. You're talking to your caricatures again.

You're very welcome to not be scientific, of course that's not a problem. But are you not aware that you're continually inventing my 'position', and making unfounded accusation after unfounded accusation about science?

That type of argument will wind anyone up, my friend. If you then see people's responses as an attack, you're stuck in a loop. I don't know what else to say.

muzuzuzus said...

Your not talkin like a human but acharicature 'scientist' or philosopher. Your attitude reminds me of this guy who does videos etc at Youtube. he is forever saying that he is a trained philosopher and WARNS people to be careful how they argue points, because to him, and his philosophical traiming arguments that make no sense are just "noise". That to me sounded defensive, and arrogant--and a perfect excuse to justify not responding to authentic challenges---a deflection in other words

"you not aware that you're continually inventing my 'position', and making unfounded accusation after unfounded accusation about science?"

You know it wasn't 'me'. I simply pasted a quote from someone else--R.D.Laing. So your really talking to him right? HE said it not me--I agree with it though.

You utterly discount ALL he said don't you--note i said HE

Bob said...

Nope.

I just don't see the point in continually trying to tell someone you've never met what they think. Surely you're bound to just get it wrong? Seems pretty daft to me...

muzuzuzus said...

I am not trying to tell you what you think--thats what you think ;)

William said...

Good stuff Bob, thanks.

Bill Morrison

Anonymous said...

could a proton be counted as a magnetic monopole? (sorry if this is a stupid question.. mixing apples and oranges..)

Bob said...

It's a perfectly good question.

If you wanted to investigate the magnetic field of a proton, you'd use a hydrogen atom, which is just a proton interacting electromagnetically with an electron.

You could look at the spectrum of hydrogen, which is packed with tons of detailed info about the electromagnetic field around a proton.

One of the most amazing things about quantum theory is that if we put everything we know about electricity and magnetism into the theory (including something called Gauss's Law of magnetism), the calculations reproduce every tiny detail of the hydrogen spectrum to astonishing precision.

But this only works if Gauss's Law is true for the magnetic field of a proton, and this means its magnetic charge is zero.

Gauss's Law might turn out to be false for some other particles out there, but we know it's very very precisely true for a proton. So the answer is no. There's no magnetic charge, so it can't be a monopole.

Anonymous said...

I honestly think that both of you have failed here in your attempts to debunk each other. First off I'd like to start by saying that Nassim does bring up many interesting subjects that relate to particle physics. His method of finding these is like any other scientist out there, he follows his own studies whether the general public likes it or not.

However, I am going to have to agree with you on the fact that his studies in "Physics" have barely any correct mathematical proof (as used by Physicists, not MATHEMATICIANS), and that many of the equations he used can be found in a high school Physics textbook. I agree that if he thinks he has found a GUT, he should most definitely include more Physics than speculation and appearance. If you were to compare the works of Garret Lisi to Nassim, you could easily see that the reason why Garret is promoted is because he has ALL the math and physics behind his theory. Now, this does not mean his theory is correct, and Nassim's is wrong and vice-versa. After all, they are both THEORIES and should be treated as such. Who knows? Nassim may somehow be right and Garret wrong, the opposite may also be true.

As to the following of Nassim, there is a common stereotype behind his fans, and that is that many of them are pot smoking, drug abusing hippies who live in vans out in nature. While most of them may be (I know a few), the underlying truth shows that both Garret and Nassim both lived in their vans while doing their early research, somewhere out in nature. Both did some kind of sport, (Garret, surfing, Nassim, Snowboarding). In the end, they are initially the same type of person except one knows complex algebra and the other doesn't. You cannot judge a person based on their following.

Now I would like to address the reason behind why I discredit both you and Nassim in the debunking process. First of all, both of you use personal insults as a way of trying to give your article some kind of power over the other. Sorry but it doesn't work, if you are going to start name calling and swearing over a professional topic such as particle physics, you obviously have no respect for the science itself. Second of all, Bob, you are not showing me any kind of Physics that I don't already know, and while it may be true that Nassim is wrong, you are also using equations and theories that are learned at the high school level. Third of all, both of you have no respect for each other as fellow scientists. No matter who is right or wrong, you both should have the morale to view each other in some kind of high regard. People don't do Physics to make major cash out of it, they do it for the love of it.

Lastly, I would like to say that there is indeed a mathematical function(s) behind everything in our universe and that nobody should be ridiculed publicly due to their beliefs about it. If I'm not mistaken, Nassim asked a question many of us have asked in one of his videos. "If the universe is expanding, what are we expanding into, and where is the mathematical equation for this cause of expansion?" He is not an idiot by any means, in fact a lot about what he says about waves and spirals is correct, though some of it may be wrong. But his presentation and justification methods are extremely flawed, and if he hopes to get anywhere with his theory, he needs to go read up on Physics.

Also, all the 2012 stuff, Nibiru, crop circles, flying pyramids, UFOs, etc....all complete bullshit.

Anonymous said...

Request URI too large to process...complete bullshit...and I had the perfect balanced response written out. Fuck this domain.

Bob said...

Thank you for your 'perfect balanced response'.

It's a bit of a cliché (not to mention a fallacy) to suggest that balanced is achieved by presenting the pros and cons of both sides of an argument equally.

What I've written here is all about the physics: why everything Nassim tries to say on the subject is confused or plain wrong and definitely misleading. If you want detail, there's plenty here.

I haven't done any name-calling or insults or made any comment about his character, except (as I've explained) inasmuch as to comment that his integrity is seriously compromised by the degree of incompetence that his presentations of physics reveals.

I haven't judged him by his followers either, I've judged him by the vast mismatch between the stuff he presents as physics and what he claims for it and for himself. But the fact that none of his followers understand physics is nonetheless relevant.

You'd like me to treat him with more respect as the scientist he pretends to be, while I'm pointing out that virtually everything he says is misleading nonsense? Of course I'm not going to hold him in high regard. What kind of sense would that make? The guy's a fraud.

You say "After all, they are both THEORIES and should be treated as such. Who knows? Nassim may somehow be right and Garret wrong, the opposite may also be true." Let me ask you a question. What does 'right' or 'wrong' mean to you?

I've explained why it's clear that he's bullshitting, and I've explained that his theories don't actually give any results that explain or predict anything. But I've also shown why it's plain wrong. Physics is nothing more than creating conceptual models that faithfully reflect nature, so to show something's wrong in physics, all you need is an observation of nature that disagrees with it. I've done that for Nassim's theories, dozens of times over.

"Nassim may somehow be right" is not something that can be applied to the guy except in fairyland.

Anonymous said...

An argument as misdirecting and flaky as Harameins, I mean berating him for negating gravity at a un-importantly low level then saying renomalization of say QED, QFT, or QCD is acceptable........they are essentially the same thing, infinities aside.

Bob said...

Sigh.

Do you realise how pretentious and foolish it is to keep using words when you don't know what they mean? Do you think nobody will realise?

Look, if I'm 'berating' him, it's for wilfully ignoring what can very easily be observed, replacing it with fantasy that can very easily be shown to be false, pretending to be a physicist in order to attract paying followers, and misleading people who actually want to know the truth about the universe.

Your dishonesty regarding your own pretend understanding ("you are not showing me any kind of Physics that I don't already know") is not appreciated here. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Well, if NH is so wrong why not just let him fall on his face! What is your need for discrediting him? It sounds to me like Bob and some others think they see and hear everything with a clarity in which no other could see. Oh well, doesn't really matter anyway. If its all a lie, Bob is just perpetuating bullshit. leave it alone or don't.
but in my opinion live and let live. It will all come to fruition sooner or later.

Anonymous said...

hi, i have another question totaly unrelated to the thread of debunking NH fraudster...

Is one atom of uranium radioactive all the time or is it radioactive only at the exact moment of decay?

with regards

Bob said...

I don't know what you think I'm trying to do, but as I've said many times I'm not trying to stop him saying whatever he likes, or to stop anyone from following him. I'm presenting a perspective that sheds a lot of light on it, for the benefit of anyone who's interested in questioning what he's saying. And I'm happy to discuss or debate with anyone who would like any further clarity. For anyone who's not interested in questioning what he's saying, what I'm saying obviously won't be of interest.

Regarding your question, if we take the definition of radioactive is "giving off, or capable of giving off, radiant energy in the form of particles or rays, as alpha, beta, and gamma rays, by the spontaneous disintegration of atomic nuclei", then the answer is clearly yes.

You could probably find definitions that would make the answer no. That's no paradox, though: it's merely the result of a word being commonly used in a variety of ways.

Peter said...

1st February 2011

Hi Bob

I've just been to a Festival called 'Luminate' in New Zealand, where a guy named Jamie Janover introduced himself as a roving emissary for Nassim Haramein's ideas.
I thought it was very curious that a new 'unified field theory' was to be presented to an audience at a new age festival rather than to the physics community, but I went along to the first session with an open mind. Perhaps Jamie was going to elucidate the story of the search for a uft for a general audience. That would be good.
I was impressed by Jamie's charisma and rapid fire oratory, which left virtually no room for questions. I was even impressed by the ideas he was expounding. Study space rather than matter -- that was a new perspective, worth thinking about. The one question I did manage to ask him seemed to floor him (could you really compare mass density with vacuum density?), but he recovered with a diversion that led away from the question.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and went along to the second session, next day. The audience was now twice as large -- word of mouth -- so Jamie attempted to summarise the two hour presentation of the day before in twenty minutes. To my surprise he couldn't do it. His 'summary' was none other than the complete presentation of the day before, almost word for word. It was as if he were repeating the text of his oratory from memory. Same jokes, same pauses, same sideways looks, same sideswipes at the science community. My doubt increased by an order of magnitude, but I was still excited. A new foundation for physics that would release a unified theory? That would be wonderful!
But I came home with many questions in mind about the science - whether a proton could possibly be a black hole pair, whether neutrons or electrons were also black holes (Jamie didn't know the answer to this), whether the bindu point in the centre of the chest could contain a black hole, and so on.
I wanted a critique of the science, and pretty soon found your blog. Thank you for taking the time to make it. I see that it's all old hat to you now. There seems to be a time lag for us in New Zealand (possibly due to coreolis effects on the approximate spiral connecting Hawaii to New Zealand).
Some of the ideas that I was hearing seemed worthy of exploration by proper physicists, and I wanted to know what they thought of them. Your blog was sufficient for me to not waste further time on considering them.

Best
Peter Kemp
Nelson
New Zealand

Anonymous said...

Peter,

I wish there were more like you who actually did research on things they didn't understand instead of taking a dulcimer players word for it. I swear, the shear amount of people falling in to the fold of Haramein and the like is increasing daily. If you can, Peter, spread the word about how much bullshit it is. Tell your story. I doubt very much that people would be happy with being fed such inane horseshit if they knew the truth...not only about what a bunch of shite harameins "work" is, but how it looks like a cult, how his "emissaries" can't actually debate anything or answer simple questions...

Peter said...

Thanks Anon.

You know, I'm still left with the question, are any of Haramein's more plausible ideas worthy of proper mathematical or physical investigation? He obviously doesn't have the skills/background to do that, but if someone who did have explored the ideas rigorously, what would they come up with?

Cheers,
Peter

Bob said...

What are Haramein's more plausible ideas?

Peter said...

The idea that gravity twists space-time as well as curving it seems plausible.

Bob said...

It is plausible. That's why it was explored thoroughly as soon as Einstein put his general relativity paper out in 1915. The Lense-Thirring effect was derived in full mathematical detail within three years.

Bob said...

I doubt you'll find any remotely plausible ideas that are actually Haramein's, (as distinct from all the ones he repeatedly insinuates the credit for but have been around for decades). I haven't seen any yet.

Only today
he all but claimed credit for the Schwinger Effect on his Facebook page!

NB this was actually predicted in 1950. By Schwinger.

Peter said...

OK. We could go on. If we did, I'd learn a lot of the results of the relevant physics. But (unless you're willing to answer a lot of questions) could you point me to a good book on the subject? I've got basic physics and maths, so something a with a little grunt would be good.

Bob said...

Wow, there are tons of books on physics. When you say you've got basic physics and maths, what do you mean? And what kind of physics do you want to understand?

I can recommend Bill Bryson's Short History of Nearly Everything for a layman's overview.

My favourite more advanced thing, if you just want to understand everything, is Leonard Susskind's "Theoretical Minimum" lecture series, which lead you through the mathematical structures of theoretical physics from classical mechanics all the way to string theory. But mathematically, you'd need to be comfortable with some multi-variable calculus (and ideally vector calculus and matrices) from the start, as well as familiarity with electromagnetism as far as Maxwell's equations and vector potentials, and the first and second laws of thermodynamics, that kind of thing.

There's a bit of a gap between those two though.

Peter said...

Thank you.

Upper school maths and physics as far as simple matrices and univariate calculus, and the photo-electric effect, atomic numbers etc.

I'll start with the sources you name, and fill the gaps in my knowledge of the maths as I go. Any recommendations for texts on multivariate calculus etc.?

Over and out.

Anonymous said...

Peter,

Another great place to dig in to is iTunesU. I am not sure you can access it outside of the US, but you should be able to. It's pretty much every single top university in the world posting up complete courses in subjects....they even have Leonard Susskinds classes from Stanford(i highly recommended watching them)

If you have the iTunes client for downloading or managing music, go to the itunes store and you should see a link for it. All of it is free :)


If you want to read more conceptual stuff that really is way the hell out there, try string theory(but don't forget to read opposing viewpoints on it).

I would suggest "the elegant universe(also a 3 hour tv special) by brian greene
and
"The trouble with physics" by lee smolin.

Bob said...

Anonymous - yes, all good stuff!

Peter - my all time favourite maths reference is Riley Hobson and Bence. It's a wonderful reference. If you work through the first 2/3 of the partial differentiation chapter (it's not as scary as it sounds), you'll have all the maths you need to make a start on the Susskind lectures.

Physics-wise, you should be ok until he starts talking about electromagnetism. These lectures are the bees knees on electromagnetism. You may find the vector calculus chapter in Riley Hobson and Bence helpful (Maxwell's equations are usually expressed in a vector calculus form); as well as the chapter after it (line, surface and volume integrals).

But don't let yourself be daunted, just get stuck into both sets of lectures, and whenever you're unsure about the maths, take a break and do some maths for a little while.

It's fabulous stuff. You won't believe how intricate and abstract classical mechanics can be (and must be, if quantum mechanics is to make any real sense after it).

If it's too abstract for your taste, you'll realise soon enough... in that case there are plenty of others on iTunesU.

Good luck!

Peter said...

Thanks you guys. A supernova of appreciation to you.

Anonymous said...

Hi,
if you have the time, could you look at http://www.icehouse.net/john1/index100.htm
bedini's device Some people built the device ( posted videos on youtube.. ) and i for one am a bit confused... does it work?

with regards..
Franc

Bob said...

The guy needs to make a web page that humans can bear to look at. The claims don't look any different to any other internet free energy scam.

Since monopoles have never been observed, his claim to have a motor made of one is a bit silly. Oh, and Tom Bearden's in there too. Jeez.

You can take that as a no.

writerspleasure said...

Bob - Your patience is amazing. Thank you for this inspiring look at a scientist at his best. It's curious, this human desire to find an infinite energy somehow magically on tap. I can only read it psychologically as laziness. Emotionally, it seems to involve wanting to inspire a bunch of followers.

Bob said...

Thanks wp. Yes, wanting to inspire a bunch of followers... and then if a certain random idea succeeds in getting them a bunch of followers, they become absolutely unable to accept anything that contradicts it. Which effectively locks them in a box of their own making, and is kinda sad.

Anonymous said...

This has been a fantastic read. It's taken me two hours to get through all the comments but you have done a fantastic job Bob and admirably stuck to all the principals taught in basic critical thinking at Uni, something thats very hard to do when faced with often illogical and irrational drivel (why do people insist on bringing the 'soul' and 'spirituality' into the realms of science?).

Andy
New Zealand

muzuzuzus said...

errr why does 'science' insist on bringing science into the realms of soul and spirit and explaining them away, and pathologizing them?

Bob said...

Thanks Andy!

Just to be clear, I don't have any problem with issues of spirituality. I don't see science as being inconsistent with the spiritual, in general. I don't see science as having anything significant to say about the soul or the spirit. These are matters of faith, of metaphysics, of what you will, and they lie outside of science. as far as I'm concerned. And I think most scientists would agree.

Though I know that there are many 'spiritual' people who would nevertheless prefer to feel oppressed by science, as it legitimises their desire to attack it. :-)

What science does (and must) say is that pathological ideas about scientific matters that are not based on science and blatantly disagree with simple observations are ridiculous. Coming to conclusions about the mass of a proton based on some spiritual vision is silly and naive. Defending it in spite of the fact that science determines such things, as Haramein does, is simply moronic.

The dispute here is not between science and spirituality, it's between science and a fruitloop who claims to have scientific results without doing science. There's no point claiming that Haramein's ideas about the mass of the proton should be respected because they're 'spiritual'. They're just not.

Anonymous said...

Well what I learned from Haramein has nothing to do with physics. He has given a great lesson in reality creation. Even if what he is saying doesnt add up to you.. (math) he has done a great job of lubricating the physics community... discrediting him only makes you look like a roman "crucify him hes a fraud". You should be in your study working twice as hard on theories... rather than spend your energy in a low vibe de bunk battle. Do the whole 5 years in a van thing - that might shift your concrete character.

Anonymous said...

Haramain is setting the table for you... since you have all the REAL answers to his theories... then you can steal the show - write and publish all the TRUE reports, and you will be victorious. Isnt that the ego mind set to dubunking an institution. Go for it - what is stopping you is your missplaced effort in telling the WHOLE World a man is wrong.

Bob said...

It's not a matter of whether or not it adds up to me. Haramein makes misleading and blatantly false claims, including claiming to be doing scientific research when nothing he has produced bears any relation to science other than stealing some words. The whole thing is fake.

If you're happy to overlook that, fair enough, it's your call.

But don't try to claim some effect of his work on "the physics community" - the only way the physics community has and will ever respond to his work is to ignore it or ridicule it. That's not out of any wish to crucify anyone, and it's not out of any inability to see what he's doing, it's because it's absolutely clear that his 'physics' is idiotic pretentious bollocks.

If you want the "real answer to his theories", that is it. New Age man talks bollocks on the internet, lots of scientifically illiterate people get excited. Again.

I know how much some people prefer a sparkly superficial story to a true one, and I have no doubt you'll cling to the former rather than take any notice of me.

As I said above, I don't mind anyone getting whatever they want from his stories, so long as they don't insist on pretending it has anything to do with physics or science or mathematics, because that is truly silly.

Patricio said...

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

Bob said...

I'm not trying to explain the universe, I'm explaining why Haramein is full of crap and incompetent and a fraud.

Anonymous said...

left brain prisoners are pompous and angered when their left brain cage gets rattled, that's all i get from this

Bob said...

Then I wish you well in developing some capacity for original and relevant thought.

Anonymous said...

pompous, like i said, way too puffed up and stuffy with a mind like a torture chamber to keep hammering on this hatred you have of someone. it seems like you see all "non scientists" as being inherently superstitious and unable to understand anything about the universe at all. non scientist = lesser than. in the end I think religious fanaticism and science fanaticism are two sides of the coin. the scientists who were cheering and high fiving each other when they set that bomb off on the moon is the same as religious fanatics cheering when "infidels" get bombed. exact same emotion, exact same destructive capacity, exact same narrow mindedness, exact same psychological shadows.

Bob said...

Where am I expressing hatred? I've just written a blog explaining why the guy is a fraud. Not because I hate anyone, but because he's a fraud. He misleads and lies to people, and his pretence at science is incompetent and demonstrably false.

I respect honesty and I believe people deserve better.

Why come here and tell me what "it seems like" and give me some fantasy that you've made up that bears no relation to anything I've said? I don't need labelling with your prejudices, my friend. If you have any comments on any of the information I've presented, or if you have any reasoning you can give as to why you think any of Haramein's ideas have any kind of truth in them at all, then please present it.

If all you have is opinionated clichés about a version of me that you've invented where I'm some narrow-minded creativity-destroying fanatic, then don't bother.

Anonymous said...

wow. you've got 23 followers! nice. i like that. they actually call them "followers".

wow.

wow, wow, wow.

the entirety of your argument is plugging your ears and going "lalalalalalalalalalalalalala!"

and every once in a while going, "nuh uh!"

bob, you are in a state of denial. it's actually really sad. i've never encountered such a thing before.

i can hardly believe it.

i've come to this conclusion several times, but always felt there was a way to get through to the child like part of you that could still learn something new.

i'm really questioning that hard now.

it's looking quite hopeless at this point.

you've not actually considered a single thing i've said. this whole time.

i've read all your math bro. it's not logical.

you have missed an entire side of the equation, and because the math doesn't work out, you think it's wrong.

his math is correct. it has won awards.

your math is basic and sophomoric, and fails utterly, because it's not even the right equation!

you've missed fully half of the variables!

i have been here, hoping to give you a gift of understanding.

it doesn't matter if nassim is right or wrong bro.

at least try to comprehend what the man is saying. him and everyone else in this planet.

grow a heart, and use your mind.

i am saddened and dismayed. more saddened, though.

off you go then.

wait...
come to think of it... i have encountered such a thing before. that made me more sad than this.

this energy is what makes me sad.

i guess i just want everyone on this planet to be open minded, kind, and willing to make the changes and growth necessary to create something new and beautiful in this place.

got news for you bob. the current model is not correct. everyone knows that.

everyone.

something new is going to come along. haramein's model, or someone elses.

who cares?

as long as it's correct.

but if you keep up like you're going, you're going to miss it entirely bro.

best of luck.

love, someone without a name.

Bob said...

Hello Lucas.

Anonymous said...

all the stuffy, puffed up, dry academic types, with their degrees nailed to their chest and who have the personality of a plank of wood, are eternally envious that a good looking, intelligent, charismatic "someone" (could be anybody really) outside of their parochial little circle jerk is figuring things out. please do not have children, we have enough seriously damaged people on earth already

Bob said...

Come on, grow up. Projecting your little clichéd caricatures onto someone who expresses views you don't agree with is easy and cheap and immature.

It's the stuff of bigotry and prejudice. If you think that is creative - if you think that is what the planet needs - for the sake of all of us think again.

Do you have any reasons to disagree with anything that I've said, or don't you? Do you wish to present a scientific defence of anything that this man who claims to be a scientist has said, or don't you?

I've done my honest best to shed some light on what this guy is talking about. I've put a lot of consideration and thought into what I've said, and I've done so for the benefit of those who are interested in investigating it themselves. If you don't agree, then say why, and say what it is about what I've written that you don't agree with.

Not what you despise about the character that you've imagined for me. Because if you do that, you're talking to yourself. Ok?

Anonymous said...

Hi,

can you take a quick look at this theory and post your thoughts about it?
http://www.antigravity.org/BigSpinModelOfGravity.html

with regards

Bob said...

Hi. If the universe was rotating, there would be an axis, a direction through the universe that would be fundamentally distinct from any other, and that would be clearly observable and very unlike what we see.

A 'hyper-rotation' is more complex, but that also would select distinct planes and directions that would be easily observable. And hyper-rotations have their own fatal problems - they transform time into spatial dimensions, which doesn't make a great deal of sense either.

So no, it's rather silly. Learn general relativity, which is beautiful and astonishingly reliable and has withstood a century of people making increasingly detailed observations to try to find the slightest discrepancy. Either take it from there, or find real flaws in the GR theory. If someone pretends they have a better theory without very thoroughly understanding GR, it's a bit of a joke.

Anonymous said...

thank you for your thoughts.. it seemed to me that difference between general relativity and this theory was only in that in GR one part of space in permanently connected to another part of space (can change shape, stretch and contract), while in the other theory (the web link) space parts can move and change places.. Would it be possible to have only localized rotation?

Anonymous said...

Bob, you have the patience of a saint and the intellect/persistence of a true scholar. At first I thought he was just another misguided Crank (ala Velikovsky). The more I see of Haramein, the more difficult it is to believe that anyone could be that naivete and/or stupid and/or lazy and/or .... without doing some of it deliberatly. His attack on your critique was priceless: attacking you and established science [as if Chinese scientists wouldn't attempt to get free energy if it were possible], ignoring some of your questions, throwing in extraneous arguments (e.g., nobody understands mass rather than explaining his incrediblely bad number), manufacturing fudge factors (e.g., "speed" so close to speed of light that it is withing experimental error and is effectively at the singularity), cherry picking examples, etc. His latest comments about the Anticipatoroy Systems Conference raise may red flags.

He does fit most of the attributes of a Crank as defined by Azimov, Martin Gardner, etc.

But his followers bother me even more. Best example I've seen is the anonymous twit who so baselessly attached you on March 24-25 in this blog. Does he read English? More normal statements are like: "I know almost nothing about math or physics, but I think he's right or he makes sense or it feels right to me" -- usually because his theory is simple and easily understood -- often misusing Occam's Razor. "Don't trust establishment scientists" -- this from may people who are taught to be nonjudgemental. What a generalization!!!

Love the attacks on you because you insist that logic and knowledge are sufficient to debunk his theories and won't give your name or credentials -- even though Haramein doesn't seem to have credentials either. I don't blame you. Some of his followers are scary (re example above).

No wonder we are falling behind in science.

Haramein loves to call himself a scientist, yet most scientists I know particularize themselfs (e.g., not Physicist but Nuclear Physicist, or Cosmologist etc.). But scientist has a better cachet with the public than any other specific title (I think).

Thank you -- thank you.

muzuzuzus said...

"His attack on your critique was priceless: attacking you and established science [as if Chinese scientists wouldn't attempt to get free energy if it were possible]"

So it is one thing to criticize Harrieman, but another one to presume that this means Free Energy is not a possible reality. So is that what you and Bob are claiming?

Bob said...

Thanks, supportive commenter… I appreciate it!

I've been taken aback that so many people are still going to such lengths to try to put me down, and so few people have even attempted to defend the logic of his theories specifically against any of the gaping flaws I've outlined. Not many of his followers care too much about that, it seems.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Anyway, it's not too pleasant to keep waking up to notifications of more hateful comments. So it's nice to get supportive messages too. So thanks for that.


Re Muzu, no, neither of us made any such presumptions. The point is that when Haramein claims that free energy is within his grasp and uses that claim as the basis for getting funding (not to mention duping people into thinking he's a scientist), he is either a complete fruitloop, or - as is more likely - a thoroughly dishonest and manipulative crook.

There are only three reasons why someone would need to imply that every scientific establishment in the world would deliberately ignore something as game-changing as free energy:

1. every scientist in the entire world apart from him is too narrow-minded or stupid to recognise his work;
2. every scientist in the entire world is in a global conspiracy together that doesn't allow such ideas to get out; or
3. what he is saying is an utter pile of bollocks, but there are so many people prepared to buy it he couldn't care less.

I just find it amazing that there are people who seriously believe that either of the first two are more likely than the third. I honestly don't know what planet they're living on.

It's kind of fascinating.

That applies not only to Haramein, but to any of the 'free energy' freeloaders on the internet. Are any of them actually using their free energy capabilities to sell in significant quantities to consumers? No, they're too busy making money from telling stories about it. Why? Because energy consumers require it to be true, which is inconvenient. The people who pay to hear them talk are perfectly satisfied with bullshit.


Regarding the previous comment about an 'alternative to GR' - the universe is full of rotating things, and they all carry spacetime around with them locally, to some degree.

Anonymous said...

"So it is one thing to criticize Harrieman, but another one to presume that this means Free Energy is not a possible reality. So is that what you and Bob are claiming?" muzuzuzus

No! That was not my intent. Free Energy is
another discussion, another thread.

I was giving an example of how absurd Haramein's view of boxed-in scientists is. I don't know what the Chinese are investigating. Do you? If they believe Free Energy is possible, then they are probably investigating it. They probably, more than any country on Earth, need clean, cheap energy.

People who claim that "Establishment" Science is boxed in just don't have a clue as to what motivates some (perhaps not all) scientists, what graduate schools teach, etc. My professors, 30+ years ago, where very interested in new ideas (such as Chaos Theory [actually discovered by Poincare], the ability of a planetoid to jump from a heliocentric orbit inside Venus' orbit to one outside Venus' orbit and back again [I think it was Venus, definitely an inner planet]). These were very controversial ideas at the time.

I wrote my comment to thank Bob, since this was/is a current blog. I have never commented before and don't understand blog protocol, etc.

Don

Anonymous said...

"People who claim that "Establishment" Science is boxed in just don't have a clue as to what motivates some (perhaps not all) scientists, what graduate schools teach, etc. Anonymous Don

I would like to add that different cultures have different viewpoints -- obviously. Fuzzy Logic was first "created" in the West, but initially found its major proponents in the East (Japan) because it fit their belief systems better [see books, articles by Bart Kosko]. It was used for automatic focusing on camera, etc. Now the applications are endless and we in the West have embraced it.

Haramein has Science (and I include math with that) as a monolithic culture. How absurd! Just shows his extreme lack of knowledge about Science, Scientists, and Human Nature. Ditto some of his followers.

Don

muzuzuzus said...

"There are only three reasons why someone would need to imply that every scientific establishment in the world would deliberately ignore something as game-changing as free energy:

1. every scientist in the entire world apart from him is too narrow-minded or stupid to recognise his work;
2. every scientist in the entire world is in a global conspiracy together that doesn't allow such ideas to get out; or
3. what he is saying is an utter pile of bollocks, but there are so many people prepared to buy it he couldn't care less.

I just find it amazing that there are people who seriously believe that either of the first two are more likely than the third. I honestly don't know what planet they're living on.

It's kind of fascinating.

That applies not only to Haramein, but to any of the 'free energy' freeloaders on the internet. Are any of them actually using their free energy capabilities to sell in significant quantities to consumers? No, they're too busy making money from telling stories about it. Why? Because energy consumers require it to be true, which is inconvenient. The people who pay to hear them talk are perfectly satisfied with bullshit."

heard of the history of Hemp Bob?

Anonymous said...

Wow Bob, such a retard. Saying someone is a fraud etc yet you are a nobody. You may say you know something and you may think it's a fact yet you may be taught wrong. Haven't you thought about that? You people here are the same fools who were saying the Earth was flat, unfortunately you won't live to find out how wrong you were. You people live in a box, attacking the one trying to get out of one. Retards, simply retards. Eat your aspartame filled food, believe the most ridiculous Einstein theories. Believe in god.

Bob said...

Ooh, my first death threat - cool. :)

Of course I've thought about that. Oddly enough, the way to learn physics is not by "being taught", it's by being continually asking "Why does that have to be true? Couldn't it be otherwise? Are there rock solid reasons for making that assertion? What if you think about it this way instead? What if I measure these things differently?"

What can I say? Go to a good university and see what it's like.

Somehow I think you might not do that, because it's so much easier to cling to your comfortable prejudices, make obnoxious comments about people you have never met, and ridicule things without having a clue what they mean. (Einstein's theories? Wtf do you know about them? Seriously?)

If that's what you think your beliefs entail, then lord help us all.

Bob said...

The thing I like about science, why I think it's better than listening to some guy making stuff up that he dreamt about on a bus, it that science is about Bothering To Look At Things.

How do we know the world isn't flat? Because People Bothered To Look At It.

There's a rule in science: if you can't be bothered to go and look, to compare your theory to reality, then don't complain when someone else bothers to do it for you and finds that it doesn't work.

If you cling to it regardless, because it brings you fame and fortune, you're a fraud. Period.

And when someone clings to a fraud without bothering to question what he's doing... I don't know what the best word is, but it's not going to be something you'd want to aspire to.

Shroomos said...

Thanks Bob for this blog.

I can only get scared thinking about how many people out there are able to go on such lenghts ignoring plain common sense.

I've only recently heard about Haramein (while reading about cranks on the internet) but am truly impressed by the amount of people following him while NEVER EVER bothering to try and see through any basic bullshit he claims.

You'd think that with the internet anyone with a little reading comprehension would be able to educate themselves enough to learn how to check the veracity of any absurd claim... but no. Stuff like that make me kind of depressed, you could hope that such a cenario would not be possible.

Just for the sake of curiosity, I will keep observing him. I guess he will end up looking like some sort of spiritual leader after some years from now and hopefully nothing more.

As someone already said, you have the patience of a saint. Really thank you. (and sorry about possible rubbish english)

Anonymous said...

Saw a video of his for the first time the other day, then found this blog.

Looked interesting, especially the double torus to visualise things.


But what struck me immediately was he said that Coriolis forces are what causes water to flow out a drain in different directions in the northern and southern hemisphere.

Now any school child here can tell you that is totally untrue and unscientific and can be proven wrong easily by experimentation.

Why would someone with such scientific insights make such a fundamentally wrong statement?

This led me to look for other mistakes that lead me here to this blog.


Maybe some small thing will come out of this theory, who knows, but at least it has us thinking and showing us we need to test the validity of everything we hear or see.

Beangoben said...

thanks bob for keeping a cool attitude and promoting critical thinking!

ptor said...

If you can measure the mass of a proton then you have affected it, no?. Even so, would measuring it's mass in different environments come up with different results? (i.e. at velocities approaching C or highly electrically charged place or different gravitational scenarios)
Perhaps the difference between weight and mass is important here. If gravity is indeed a by product of electromagnetic force, then protons should logically have an entirely different interraction with "Gravity" than classic physics is aware of and Nassim's numbers could actually be realistic.
Perhaps the proton weight that is classically measured is only the value significant to this particular dimension.
"Relative" is always a good word to remember.
Vacuum is where most of the energy in the universe is.

Nassim did successfully defend the phi spiral thing there Bob and he sure does have a point about making yourself usefull in a constructive manner...which brings about the point of divergence of science itself from the old-school radio-active branch to the new school radio-generative branch. All this atom smashing to create new particles is what I call kooky!
As a total skeptic, you haven't convinced me Bob.

Bob said...

"If you can measure the mass of a proton then you have affected it, no?"
No.

"Even so, would measuring it's mass in different environments come up with different results?"
No.

"Perhaps the difference between weight and mass is important here."
No.

"If gravity is indeed a by product of electromagnetic force, then protons should logically have an entirely different interraction with "Gravity" than classic physics is aware of"
It isn't. Not even Nassim says it is. So no.

"Perhaps the proton weight that is classically measured is only the value significant to this particular dimension."
What?

""Relative" is always a good word to remember."
Yup, it's a great word for people who can't be bothered to find out what's really going on, or what relativity means.

"Nassim did successfully defend the phi spiral thing there Bob"
Where? He's defended nothing.

"and he sure does have a point about making yourself usefull in a constructive manner"
No he doesn't. His definition of constructive is something that doesn't go against his narrow-minded ideas. I prefer constructive to mean seeking the truth about the universe, using evidence, observation and logic. Exposing fakes and charlatans is essential part of any constructive attitude to science, just as exposing fraudulent financial activity is an essential part of any kind of constructive attitude to economics.

"which brings about the point of divergence of science itself from the old-school radio-active branch to the new school radio-generative branch."
What divergence? The only divergence is between people who actually do science and people who fabricate stories and charge for them. Call them what you like - it's not science.

"All this atom smashing to create new particles is what I call kooky!
As a total skeptic, you haven't convinced me Bob."
I couldn't give a toss. But thanks for letting me know anyway.

I've only ever been interested in communicating with people who are more interested in investigating the truth than they are in protecting their own favourite version of things. If you're defending some story that you don't understand because you like it, my advice is let go. Let go.

Personal preference is not the servant of the seeker of truth.

ptor said...

It's you who doesn't understand and is narrow minded...and an asshole to boot. Effectiveness is the measure of truth and time will tell!

Bob said...

Time does indeed tell. I wonder what you think any more time will tell that the last "20 years of tireless dedication" haven't already told?

Have any of his outrageous claims for himself and his work been upheld by any experiment, any technology, any acknowledgement by scientific bodies, any commercial bodies? Does anyone outside of his circle of scientifically illiterate fans think his work has promise, or any relationship to the real world at all?

Of course not. His success is, has always been and always will be entirely in the realm of publicity, promoting the Nassim brand, and story-telling. If you're somehow expecting that to suddenly change, then good luck to you.

Regarding narrow-mindedness: as I've noted before, when someone shows up on comment streams to accuse me of being narrow-minded, you can almost guarantee that they will:
(a) preach their view of reality as superior without giving any reason,
(b) take no notice of any of the details of the discussion and
(c) decline to actually discuss anything further.

And of course they might verbally abuse me too. As you already have.

The irony is pretty stunning. I do hope you're willing to buck the trend...

Bob said...

(I guess I should clarify that this doesn't constitute "acknowledgement by scientific bodies." For reasons that are hopefully fairly clear.)

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob,
Many thanks for taking the time to critique Haramein. I admire your patience in responding to the diverse comments/questions and putting up with some personal abuse in the process. As a layperson, I find it almost impossible to discern between pseudo-scientific babble and genuine science. So I'm thankful to be able to discard Hareim's stuff and not waste any more of my time with it.
Science seems to be so specialised these days that it is almost impossible for the layperson to verify anything. I know that the usual response is that peer-review and publication in respected journals safeguards against pseudo-science. But money and big business seems to be increasingly muddying the waters in some disciplines, with the result that many people have less respect for science than in the past.
I guess I'm just frustrated by my lack of knowledge and education and don't have the time to study deeply enough to come to my own conclusions. So thank you for taking the time and effort in this.
Regards, Tom

Bob said...

Hi Tom.

Thanks for that. I agree, it can be difficult to distinguish the truth from money-led or attention-seeking fabrications if it's a subject you're not intimately familiar with – and no-one can be intimately familiar with every subject. There are several good sites offering guidelines on how to cope with the question of who to trust, for example Sense About Science or Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience. Sometimes a simple checklist is enough to make you realise you're probably dealing with a fake. People like Haramein tick almost all the boxes.

Alternatively you can check out what people are saying about anything specific by going to public forums like PhysicsForums or JREF. Even when the subject is unfamiliar to me, my experience is that it usually becomes clear pretty quickly who knows what they're talking about and who is just there to defend their favourite random opinion.

Good luck anyway. It's well worth the effort.

Anonymous said...

From Rene:

truth check!!! and then i will bother with the time expense of digesting your blog...

You said way up the top of the scroll "we have a free world"... explain that with honesty...or better yet...try to live "free". Just watch the banks and big business get involved (the main source of funds for science are they not, hinting at the business model prison holding info back if its not profitable, patentable...or as J.P Morgan would say, has a place for the meter.) don't you think you revealed yourself there as being deluded? no attack, please explain, just a real huge RED flag. Is that something you can answer in the "approved" reading material you have be prescribed?

so please... give your view on the following

1) Debt free, constitutional promissory notes, with the ability to fund the public interest debt free.... like this science too perhaps. historical examples: American Colonial script, Lincoln's Greenback, and even Australia has the power written in there constitution for the creation of debt free promissory notes...the fact the it is not practiced today to get the private banks profit is an issue i am promoting now.

The collapse time of the WTC towers on 9/11 and also the "collapse" of WT7 (yes, sarcasm) taking near matching the acceleration of gravity.

2) The uniform structural collapse from fires and given the impact locations on the WTC buildings, why they didn't favor falling to one side.

3) Mytbusters claims on the John Bedini generator... knowing this thing looks like the spark generator form the 1800's and that even if this is not a permanent solution to the energy shortages(which the companies get mass profits from) you must be suspicious that such usually observant people of Mythbusters (is that too generous ha) could so crudely recreate their experiment for the honesty of science. could one not store those sparks in a bank of batteries?

(lol, come on, what do you do when you have to address this stuff, over look it, memory hole? Call the guys or gal a conspiracy theorist or pot smoker? how unscientific.)

4) The common people would like things to last as long as possible, doing the best possible job, and can easily be repaired. why is not the trend in the "free world" we have? Small business people are excluded from that trend, they have to follow suit. if i need to explain why they are excluded in the current climate, then i very much doubt you have ever managed finances for your own home, business or science project.

I support new thinkers, and know the stream they swim against. Knowing im not all knowing, i keep an open mind and look forward to the reward of correcting or improving my own point of view. Nassim, for me points out clearly how the current theory for the pyramids and our LOST past is wide open for interpretation and the usual explanation given are usually to shot down such interpretation. Wouldn't want to kids to loose sleep or question mum and dad now would we...

The public is treated like a developing child and knowledge, like matches, is a dangerous thing...who knows what we could burn down if we new it to be false. better have a total supervision hey? i think I've hinted enough, haha.

Please reply when convenient. :)

I have put my name to Anonymous for simplicity, but please refer to me as Rene.

Rene.

Bob said...

I've never been "prescribed approved reading material" in my life. I read what I like.

What do any of your questions have to do with this blog?

If you really feel the need to blurt random opinionated clichés at people, please do it somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

weak. shut down your blog.

Rene.

Bob said...

:-)

Anonymous said...

I have found this debate fascinating though i understood very little. I wish these two would continue insulting each other as i really enjoyed it. I have no idea who is right but they definetly made me think.

Bob said...

Ha! Thanks.

Which two? Haramein and me? I don't think I've insulted him at all. I don't think calling him a fake or a fraud is an insult - just plain fact. But yes, it's a shame he never debates his ideas with people who disagree with him.

I still find it strange when people tell me they've no idea who's right. Haramein says every proton in every atom in your body has a mass of 885 million tonnes. He says they pull each other inwards with a force 700 trillion trillion times the weight of Mount Everest. He's clueless.

It just goes to show what influence a charismatic delusional can have on people, if he can make himself sound so authoritative that they don't even notice the garbage they're being sold. It's scary.

Anonymous said...

Rene,
Please stick to the physics, that's what we all here are trying to do. Physics and quantum physics are hard enough to talk about, there are other places where you can discuss your concerns about the world. I understand the world elite doesn't care about us, that there's a corrupt power in the FMI and blah blah blah, but I care about those things in other forums, not this. If you had read what has been said here -I know it's much easier to watch videos, but please feel free to grab a book sometime ;)- then you would've seen this blog is about the physics Haramein puts on the table. Even if he's right about everything you are saying, I DON'T CARE NOW, because IT'S NOT THE POINT. He is trying to make you think he's a revolutionary physicist but he's misleading you. He may be a revolutionary guru or philosopher (his shirts are really revolutionary in a way) and I'll be happy for you if you are happy following him, but please he is not telling the truth when he talks about physics, he's acting. Please. Enough subject-changing posts.
Bytheway name's Dan.

Bob said...

Thanks Dan :)

I think Rene was checking to see if I agreed with any of the things in his/her belief system before getting any more involved in discussion. Some people won't deign to talk to anyone unless they follow the orthodox doctrine of the Church of Internet Conspiracy, which for them is too obvious to even think about.

Often these are the same people who call others closed-minded... which is amusing. But let's see. I might be getting him/her completely wrong.

Anonymous said...

Bob,

If Nassim's theories are wrong, then why do the crop circles keep confirming them? And why have there been no crop circles confirming Einsteins field equations?

Just kidding, thanks for the Blog :)

-A Humble Herald Of Infinity- said...

Bob-o-tron, you're completely overlooking the utterly obvious implications of the thermonucleic polyversal anti-inverted-trinary inhibition mechanisms inherent in all atomic subsystems, and their respective dynamic interference patterns with regard to sentience (represented by the number 9). Go and reread Haramein's explanation and give it up... Or do you need to see Rauscher's resume one more time?

Bob said...

Cool! Did you see that on Sesame Street?

-A Humble Herald Of Infinity- said...

No! I heard the fish talking about it when I was exploring the depths of the ocean. Though it wasn't exactly the ocean, it was the underside of the tectonic plates beneath your very feet at this moment. Atlantis has been buried under there and is trying to resurface, being summoned by the egyptian god, Osiris. And when it does...!? Just you wait and see what he thinks of you!

Bob said...

That sounds even better than Sesame Street. When Atlantis resurfaces from under my very feet, I'll check it out. And don't worry about Osiris, he's just grumpy 'cause scientists called his mate Pluto a dwarf. He just needs to chill.

Anonymous said...

Is there any credibility with this idea?

http://www.netowne.com/naziufos/boblee/gravity.htm

with regards

Bob said...

I can't see any problem in seeing gravity as a push rather than a pull. I think that's something that could be expanded on as a tool for envisioning spacetime and its effects on matter.

The article falls into a few glaring logical traps, such as assuming that there is something special about the centre of the Earth rather than recognising that gravity has to originate from every atom in the Earth independently. (Consider two blobs stuck together - is there a special place at the centre of each blob, or is it at the centre of the composite blob? That kind of idea would give rise to all sorts of logical inconsistencies.)

The theory is presented using lots of little rules and images, which makes it clear that the author doesn't appreciate just how conceptually elegant the theories of modern physics are. Einstein's theory of gravity follows from a few basic, intuitive axioms that anyone can understand, and a few clarifications to concepts to ensure they are unambiguous in the theory; all the textbooks do is guide the student through the vast logical implications of those.

The statement "Why does mass increase? It is because resistance to the fabric of space-time increases drastically as matter pushes against it at these advanced speeds." violates relativity entirely, and I'm not sure the author intended to do that or was aware that he was doing that.

If the author is serious about his theory, he will have to do more than talk about the pictures in his head. He needs to show that his theory can reproduce all the known observations of how gravity affects things. All of them. Einstein's theory has passed every single challenge that the last 100 years has thrown at it, and is still passing new tests it even today. The author of this theory hasn't bothered to try a single one.

Even more importantly, he needs to show that his theory is capable of predicting potentially observable phenomena that could be different from what current theories predict. Otherwise how will anyone ever find out whether any of it is true or not?

To a physicist, what he has presented is not a theory at all - it's a picture book (sadly without any pictures). He makes the mistake that virtually all non-scientists make - that of massively underestimating what scientific theories can do. It's the scientific equivalent of turning up for the Olympic Marathon having jogged around the block a couple of times. It's a bit silly.

That doesn't mean it's wrong. All it means is that he's started something - he's written a little introduction - but hasn't made any effort to justify any of it, or actually done any work at all. Perhaps he should carry on and see what happens.

As it stands, it's not a theory, it's a list of unjustified opinions and beliefs. Scientists don't generally rate those very highly at all.

Is it someone you know?

Bob said...

Hmm, I guess you either didn't like my answer or were just here to use my blog for publicity. Silly me for treating it as a genuine question.

In case it was for publicity, the above comment is a review of the gravitational 'theory' of Robert J Lee. Hope it doesn't put anyone off learning what gravity is actually like, because it's one of the most fascinating and beautiful topics in physics.

Anonymous said...

no.. it was a genuine question.. i put into google "surface tention gravity" and it found this theory and it seemed for my knowledge ok.. (well, at least i did spot the faker nassim after watching ~2 hrs of his video.. and don't laugh it took me ~2 hrs.. )
do apriciate your service to the public.. :)

with regards
Franc

Bob said...

Oh - my apologies!

I do get people just using my blog for publicity, and then I feel like a mug if I respond to them. I'm glad it was a real question :-)

Thanks Franc

Anonymous said...

Dude, you are doing God's work.

PS You have the patience of Job.

Anonymous said...

From: Me

To: Everyone who thinks Bob's a hack

re: A simple, direct proof you are wrong

Many of you seem to think Bob is a hack who spends his time defending a bunch of dogmatists who are so blinded by prejudice that they can't see the truth about the world around us.

Every time someone says this, Bob sighs and points (again) to the particular scientific fallacy you are committing.

Many of you don't fall for Bob's act. You know better -- you know that it has to be easier than he says it is.

Luckily, you are right. Instead of pointing out the specific scientific errors you (or NH) make, Bob could just say: “Everything every one of you has written on this blog proves that modern physics is right, and NH is wrong.” That's because without modern physics, there'd be no internet, no computers, no smart phones, no...

That's right. No modern physics, no transistors, no lasers, no leds, no NMRs, no reactors, no….

So there you have it. You can either: a) accept reality and modern physics; or, b) reject reality and accept NH.

Your call.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous,

The fact that modern science has produced transistors, lasers, internet....etc. does not in any way prove that they have the answers for everything! Almost all technology today works on the principles of electromagnetism and we have theories as to how electromagnetism may work but ask any physicist what actually is magnetism or electricity, and they have no answer for that! We may know how magnetic fields work or how they effect objects and other fields..but why does it do so? what creates this force? what is it actually made of??? None of these can be answered by modern science! And in spite of not knowing the essence of such creative forces, yet we have created wonderful technology...Hence there is no relationship between true knowledge and such wonderful inventions! We have internet and computers that work on the principle of electromagnetism...but we do not know the essence of what exactly is electromagnetism...

Bob said...

Electromagnetism is what it is - it's electromagnetism. Electromagnetism is precisely what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

What is this 'essence' you think it has to have?

Are you talking about knowing what it is in relation to something else instead of just being what it is? If you are, then that's good. That is precisely what science does - finds relationships between phenomena, and explores logical and conceptual structures among them.

As time goes on, we have found and will continue to find more and more intricate relationships between electromagnetism and the phenomena that arise from it; and also between electromagnetism and more fundamental forces that generate it.

So what's your point? Electromagnetism in and of itself, or electromagnetism in relation to other phenomena and concepts? Or something else?

I keep hearing this myth of ignorance, and I can understand why people are attracted to it. The thing is, it's very easy to close your eyes and pretend that everybody else in the world doesn't understand something. To actually make the case, you need to at least know the basics of what others have found out. Otherwise you're only talking about yourself.

Anonymous said...

From: Me

To: Anonymous

re: One more time

Obviously, I wasn't as clear as I should have been. Let me try again.

But first: If you want to criticize me, please follow Bob's rules and point out what I've said that's worng. Don't wank on about "electromagnetism" or "essence." That might work at your house, but this is Bob's house, so we are using Bob's rules.

Here's my argument, restated.

1) NH says that modern physics, including quantum mechanics, is wrong and he is right.

2) But quantum mechanics isn't just about a bunch of arcane stuff, like black holes or protons. Quantum mechanics is also about a bunch of mundane stuff we all use, such as transistors and lasers. The scientists who invented and perfected transistors didn't rely on some general theory of "electromagnetism." They relied on a quantum theory of electromagnetism.

3) So, if quantum mechanics is as screwed up as NH says, then the problem isn't just that it's screwed up about protons. It's also screwed up about stuff like transistors and lasers. If he is right, then they can't work.

4) But they do work. If they didn't, NH wouldn't have his website, and his minions wouldn't be posting comments here!

5) Therefore, NH is wrong, and quantum mechanics is right.

6) QED

Here's where NH goes wrong. Modern physics is a coherent whole. It works by applying a few basic principles over and over in many different settings. So you can't just take one part, like the proton, say it's shit and have everything else be fine. If one part of physics is shit then it's all shit.

So, if NH is right, and physicists are wrong about the proton, then they are also wrong about quantum optics and quantum electrodynamics. But since those theories gave us the transistor and the laser....

As I said, the choice is simple, really: Are you going to believe NH or your experience of daily life?

I know where I'm putting my money.

Anonymous said...

From: Me

To: Bobathon

re: Getting with the program

Dude, this is fun and all, but I think it's time you faced some facts. Not only are you not winning this battle, but you can't possibly win. Even the most charitable reading of the comments shows that your audience is filled with clowns who don't understand even the most basic logic. You are never going to change their minds.

My proposal is simple: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I don't know about you, but I don't have a house in Hawaii or legions of adoring fans. And it's been awhile since my minions got invited to preach at jam band festivals. And don't even ask about multi-disc DVD sets.

We are clearly way smarter than NH, so we if we put our heads together, I'm sure can come up with a much better scheme than his.

In fact, I already have our slogan: Dialectrical materialism is the electromotive force of history. That seems like a great foundation for the science of "Quantum investing."

I tell you, it's going to be huge.

Now, how comfortable are you in front of the camera?

Bob said...

Heh - I'm not trying to change their minds, luckily (it would be a bit silly to write physics posts if I was).

But "quantum investing" - that sounds like a winner. The Principle of Attraction (flies to bs) will guarantee its success. Can you get fractals in there too?

Anonymous said...

To the "Getting with the program" guy;
Yours is a very obstinate "ad nauseam" kind of argument, but please keep in mind that repeating something many times doesn't make it true.
It is clear to me that this sometimes rich discussion falls into the same place over and over again. And after reading the whole blog for many months I think I see a pattern, and it's a most intriguing one. Some subjects, let's call them "H people" repeat time after time that science is dogma and they won't buy it. I'm not going to rejoice in the fact that 75% of this people (I've counted it, honest) have difficulties to express what they really mean, and that they don't understand half of what it's being explained here. I'll just say their handicap seems often self-inflicted, and that is a very sad sight to behold. A few times, you find one of this "H people" that knows how to express an idea, and then you think there's going to be a nice and healthy debate, but this sensation rapidly goes away when you realize his or her idea is not really his/her own. They are following a dogma. Let's see if you get the difference; science is a discipline of investigation and constructive doubt questing with logic, evidence and reason to draw conclusions. Proceeds by setting up hypothesis, ideas or models, and then attemps to disprove them, constantly asking questions.
What Haramein and the "H people" do is about turning untested beliefs into unshakeable truth through the power of charisma and deceitful videos. It demands a positive suspension of critical faculties.
I can imagine how someone decides to be one of this kind of people and place their fingers in their ears and go "nananana I won't listen" and live happy (it's up to you guys) but what I just don't get is how an ignorant can be so blatantly proud of his ignorance.
My name is Daniel, bytheway.
And again Bob, thanks for your patience.
Love to you all.

d..

Anonymous said...

From: Me

To: Daniel

re: I agree/thanks

Well said. I couldn't agree more completely.

I especially liked what you said about science being the "discipline of investigation and constructive doubt questing with logic, evidence and reason to draw conclusions" that "proceeds by setting up hypothesis, ideas or models, and then attemps to disprove them, constantly asking questions."

I just wish I'd read your comments before I wrote my posts. My goal was to get the H people to do some armchair science, by thinking about the implications of their hypothesis and then testing those implications against data. If I'd read your post first, I might have made that point more clearly.

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to jump in thoughtfully. It's appreciated. I hope to read more.

PS Do you know about "cargo cults"? That's what NH really reminds me of.

Anonymous said...

I Obviously meant "theirs", not "yours" at the beginning of my post, sorry.

Daniel,

Anonymous said...

From: Me, again

To: Bob & his loyal readers

re: It's all in this cartoon

http://xkcd.com/808/

Seriously.

If you love NH, you should look at this cartoon and ask: Where's the swag from NH's "science"?

Bob said...

Excellent! I love xkcd. He has the best answers.

And let me guess the response:

1. ...they are using these things, but covertly, so "they" can control us all from secret high-tech cavererns :-/

2. ...it's "in development" - it's just around the corner! - which is why you should invest in these new promising maverick technologies! Give us a few million and a few years...

Actually if you want to know where's the swag, some can come in via the second answer. There really are people wealthy enough, stupid enough and careless enough to fall for that.

Slam Blambacid said...

Well, Bob.. It seems that your model is collapsin along with all other systems that rule our society..It is written

A number of scientists from the center went on to make comments that raised the possibility that the mystery particle might not exist.

"Whatever the final verdict on Higgs, we are now living in very exciting times for all involved in the quest for new physics,"


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/us-science-higgs-idUSTRE77L5KS20110822?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&dlvrit=309301

Bob said...

My model? Have you decided that I'm Professor Higgs?

Have I even mentioned the Higgs particle?

It amazes me what some people think I've said. They don't seem to know that they're just making it up.

At least it makes one thing clear - they're not able to find anything that I actually have said that they can legitimately argue with.

Of course the Higgs may not exist. That's always been a possibility. That's why scientists are looking to see if it is there. If it is, they're looking to see what it's like.

This is what scientists do. They look at nature to see what it's like. If someone has a theory, but nature turns out not to be like that, the theory is dropped or revised.

If it becomes clear from experiments that the Higgs particle doesn't exist, will Professor Higgs kick up a fuss and get defensive? Of course not. He's an honourable man, not a nutter. He wants to know what nature is really like. He had a great idea that just might have been correct. It was worth a look, and the act of looking will teach us a great deal.

It's very clear from experiment that Haramein's theories are bollocks. Does he kick up a fuss and get defensive when people point this out? Yes. Does he carry on selling his theory anyway? Yes he does. Does he give a crap what nature is really like? No he does not.

All he has to do is stay clear of physicists and sell his lies to people who don't understand them, people who will believe him when he lies about his research being scientific.

Is he an honourable man or a nutter?

Slam Blambacid said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14680570

Another stupid term: "Dark Matter". Is it something that Darth Vader uses ??


This article and many others of researches you can find on the web, are pointing that today's phisycs paradigm is completely flawed... like happened in times of Einstein. And at this time is pointless that people stand to deffend it. Scientist should start looking for other type of answers. And only imagination can help us reachin the truth

Likt Nassim said, maybe the only thing that we have reached so far, is burn things to obtain energy. We burn wood and make fire , we collide atoms and get heat. It's amazingly primitive

What it's incredible about Nassim lectures is that without using any math, he pictures you the very truth of how universe can be rationally understanded.

- The fractal nature of universe.. how YOU and any atom are the center of the universe in his own point of view, learning about itself
- Two forces: gravitation and radiation (male-female, give-take, action-reaction, expand-contract) Did you notice that it's in the very nature of breathing ??
- There is of course a mathematycal nature for the rationing.. but it's encrypted in sacred geometry. It may take a long time and a big head to figure it out. Certainly geometry is a very hard topic for all mathematicians.

The problem with people, as it happens in the society is that we put names to everything that we don't understand, and when a problem becomes hard to solve, we just create laws to accept it as normal

As it is in the largest is in the smallest.

d.. said...

Wow, Slam, talking about senseless speech!

Man, you are so funny.
As someone wiser than me once pointed, the problem with people like you is that you can't understand the difference between what it is and what you would like it to be.
If you believe that the theoretical probability of dark matter is stupid, well that's up to you. If you think the name we've given to that possibility is stupid, well I guess that's ok too. But you haven't made any point yet, other than ignoring flagrantly that the theory was named way before the production of that space opera you proudly quoted. And yes, I'm trying to be sarcastic.
Will you be kind enough to point out why our view of physics is flawed? Is it because we use giant magnetoresistance in the hard drives we all use? Is it because we use the photoelectric effect in our daily lives? Is it because diffraction patterns and interference patterns have showed us many, many things about biology? Please enlighten us, answer those questions.
Our views of physics is unfinished, of course, but that doesn't mean it's flawed. We are still working on it, and scientific method is the best way we've found to do it. Although meditation is great and can help you a big deal in many issues, it still doesn't show it can prevent you from falling at 9.8 m/s, at list not in this planet.
People like you are "void worshipers". You like to think everything we don't know about the nature of our world means that what we do know is false. That is very childish, as believing your subjective opinion has the same value as evidence. That is not only childish, but also petty.
Haramein does not "picture the very truth" of the universe, he just talks poetry to people who like the song, people like you. That is very cool and beautiful; if you like how he describes his feelings and metaphors about the cosmos, good for you, but don't think that's a "truth". It's not truer than believing judeo-christian mythology or frigging Santa Claus.
The rest of your comment is just a mix of personal views with more new age poetry, none of them are actually true. I'm sure you are a nice person and you try to be better every day.
Maybe, if you are very lucky, eventually you'll become aware you are insulting yourself with that attitude.
I really wish you the best.

Bob said...

Wow, Slam. How can someone read so much of their own fantasy world into an article on science?

The paradigm of physics is that people use their creativity to come up with ideas about nature, to work through the implications of them for things that can be observed, and then to find ways of observing them to see which ideas are correct and which are not.

The article you linked to is about precisely that paradigm.

You want us to drop our attentiveness to nature, abandon the rigour with which we consider each other's ideas, and start just making stuff up so that it agrees with your imagination instead?

I don't think it'll catch on.

Anonymous said...

I wish that my professors in school were able to arouse my interest for physics like NH did. I am not saying he is right because I am ignorant in this field, however I am very motivated to learn. I want to understand! Sorry for my bad english it is not my native language...

Bob said...

It's excellent if you're getting interested in physics. If you look around, you may find some real physicists who are inspiring speakers, like Brian Cox, Neil Tyson, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman. Have a look on YouTube, etc.

These are honest, brilliant scientists, who are recognised worldwide as having depth of understanding. They don't simply invent stories to please an audience, like Haramein. These are people who are trustworthy, and the stories they tell are the stories of the true nature of the Universe.

If you're inspired by physics, it's surely better to have the true story of the Universe instead of someone's fantasy land. And it's so much better!

Hope you enjoy!

Slam Blambacid said...

When the mind of men can't figure out a larger reality, it "renormalizes" his thoughts and theories to adapt them to his primitive way of thinking reality. That's exactly what happened when people believed that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of universe etc etc... Dark Matter, Big Bang, String theorie, Particle of God etc etc...is junk. These are just derivatives thoughts of the last old brillant ideas, and the very proof that they are lost in a maze with dead end, since they are ignoring the fundamental fact that there is only YOU, and YOU are in it.

Sherman Williams said...

I found this discussion extremely interesting and enlightening. Since the beginning of my serious interest in amateur astronomy (1964-65) I have regularly kept track of Neptune's position among the stars. Most often I use my 10X50 binoculars. Because of the significance of this year (2011) relative to Neptune's discovery in 1846, my interest in keeping track of Neptune's position has been elevated.

I am interested in noting when Neptune is positioned closest to where it was actually observed among the star background on its discovery date. Using a copy from the Berlin star map (Hora XXI) used by Galle and d'Arrest I have chosen Neptune's position on October 27-28, 2011 as a notable observation to make. Although Neptune passed near this same location in February, it was too near the Sun to be observed.

Anonymous said...

I don't see why there's a need to debunk any of his math when there are things like this on his website. "Finally you will presented with your own personal charged ARC Crystal, and taught how to tap into its power – supporting you in achieving new levels of coherency"

You've spent an untold amount of time and energy into trying to dispel a veritable cult leader and I must ask, is that even necessary?

The people who follow this insane magical doctrine are not going to be swayed by logic or proof of Nassim's fraudulence - after all, they are choosing to have faith in his magic, and no amount of anything can change that.

It's admirable to want to "save" his followers from being swindled by these claims but at the same time it is no different than being a Missionary, attempting to force your superior views on an audience not listening.

He has created a religious following for himself in the perfect way, by never claiming it to be a religion, or himself to be a leader. He lets the followers choose to follow him, and this independent choice is what leaves you looking more foolish than him.

Kind of like watching a hardcore skeptic try and convince a devout Christian God doesn't exist. The skeptic is sitting there feeling like a genius and scoffing at the ignorance and idiocy of the Christian; yet it is the skeptic who fails to realize he is only satisfying his own selfish need to feel superior and looks ridiculous in the process.

After all, who is more foolish? The fool, or the man trying to prove he is a fool?

Seems foolish to prove an obvious point.

Bob said...

I'm aware of that.

It's not written for the people you're describing. It would be hubris to expect any of them to take any notice of my reasoning.

It's written for genuinely curious people who stumble across Haramein on the internet or via word of mouth, and want to know what's going on.

I wrote it because lots of apparently intelligent (but naive) people were simply taking him at his word, and he had an virtually unchallenged internet presence. I had participated in some forums where people were discussing his theories, and when I said it wasn't science, they asked me to explain.

This blog has been here for over 18 months now, and in that time Haramein's following has changed character quite markedly, to the point that he's now only surrounded by hardcore anti-science nutcases you speak of. He's closed down almost all forums for public discussion and retreated behind a paid membership forum.

I'm not interested in talking to the hardcore followers, at least not until they choose to be interested in questioning what they're involved in.

And I'm not trying to prove anything. Nothing needs proving. I'm trying to explain things that aren't obvious to everyone who is interested in them.

If it were to satisfy my own selfish need to feel superior, perhaps it wouldn't have attracted so many comments and discussions. But you're entitled to pontificate about your presumptions of my motivations as much as anyone else here. I wonder if you believe you know me better than I know myself. I've always found it a bizarre way to try to make a point - because it's so arrogant, unimaginative and likely to be wrong - but hey. If it makes you happy...

Anonymous said...

"Kind of like watching a hardcore skeptic try and convince a devout Christian God doesn't exist."

- Debunking NH psuedoscience, is nothing like an atheist attempting to belittle a Christian. An atheist can't covince a true christian of anything anyway, and I think we should leave God out of it when discussing NH, he is a just a man, a man with a subscription site, and some homemade DVDs, and a few jokes, and some cool powerpoint that makes the crowd go ahhhh and oooooo. The end.

Bob said...

I agree. It's nothing like 'debunking' a religion. Faith is a very personal matter.

But perhaps it's a little like debunking someone who claims the Bible is a scientific document. A claim like that has nothing to do with faith - it's just daft.

Science is the investigation of what is observably there, and the working relationship between ideas and observations.

If someone is doing the opposite of that, as Haramein is, then it's pretty easy to spot by anyone who cares to look beyond their little opinions. Haramein's wrongness is no matter of faith or opinion, it's right there for everyone to see.

Which makes it all the more fascinating that so many people cluster around him with their silly heads in his silly bubble. It takes dedication to maintain that level of stubborn ignorance, and an impressive degree of childishness to hold one's own inner feelings so high in one's assessment of the universe. I find it quite sweet.

Until they start running for President, of course. Then it gets scary.

Anonymous said...

Wow...I had no idea the world is so full of haters! it amazes me how creative thinking - new thinking - and sensible analysis that flies in the face of the establish gets so much hate. look in the mirror haters!

Bob said...

I don't 'hate' this new creative thinking, my friend. I think it's a very pretty story.

It's just that he's pretending that it's physics, and the claims he makes are all false.

I don't think the universe revolves around my feelings, so it doesn't matter to me whether I like an idea or whether I hate it - what matters is whether or not it's true.

My feelings - and your feelings - don't really enter into it. Haramein's claims about his physics, and his claims about himself as a scientist, are all entirely false. I've tried to explain why, for anyone who's interested. That's all.

If what you want is some creative story-telling, then sure - you stick with him.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 426   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

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