Friday, March 26, 2010

The Physics of the Schwarzschild Proton

'The Schwarzschild Proton' is a paper written by Nassim Haramein, proposing a model of the proton based on what he calls 'the Schwarzschild condition'.

I've discussed Haramein's methods more broadly here (starting with a look at the award he displays for this paper), but here I'm focusing on the physics in this paper. It's fairly basic, so I'm hoping to be able to present this in a way that makes at least some sense to at least some of Haramein's non-physicist audience who are interested in his ideas.

[Edit 4th Dec, updated 1st Jan: Anyone curious about Haramein's recent appearance in some obscure 'peer-reviewed' conference proceedings, please see this note: Feel free to ask questions in the comments.]

There's a lot of stuff here. You won't need all of it to get the gist – have a browse.

I'm exploring this material not with belief or opinion or conjecture, but using well-established laws of physics only – in fact I'm going out of my way to really try to make his model fit with reality.

There are six main conclusions in his paper. I'll look at each of these in turn in the light of his model.

Before I look at any of the conclusions, though, let's look first at the premise and see if we can make it work.

'The Schwarzschild Condition'

The main idea of this paper is that a proton may be considered as a black hole, and that two of these orbiting each other at the speed of light under gravitation alone provides a model for a nucleus.

His ultimate aim is to dispense with the need for the strong force altogether, and replace it with an interaction based on gravity, thereby unifying quantum theory with general relativity. This paper is intended to be a significant first step along this path.

So Haramein introduces us to the Schwarzschild proton. This is a black hole with a mass of 8.85 x 10^14 gm. In plain English, this is 885 million metric tonnes.

This reason this mass is chosen is that it's the mass that a black hole would need to have in order for it to have the same radius as a proton. Haramein takes the radius of a proton to be 1.32fm. (This is in fact the Compton wavelength of a proton, not its radius, at least not by any measure that I'm aware of, but it's good enough for now.)

The paper begins with the suggestion that a real proton may be considered to be one of these. To see if this is workable, let's compare his model with with what we already know about protons.

  • Mass of an actual proton: 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram
  • Mass of Schwarzschild proton: 885 million metric tonnes

These aren't particularly close.

How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality?
He doesn't.

What could we do to deal with this problem? We could propose that all these millions of tonnes are only experienced gravitationally when you get very close, let's say at the nuclear scales. And otherwise, we experience the usual tiny mass of a single hydrogen atom. What would generate this effect? Who cares. It's only a model, let's run with it anyway.

  • From a single actual proton: none
  • From a single Schwarzschild proton: 455 million Watts (enough to supply electricity to 60,000 US homes)

These are a little different, too.

Why would one Schwarzschild proton radiate so much? Because the application of quantum mechanics to the severely distorted spacetime in the vicinity of the event horizon of such a tiny black hole gives rise to a correspondingly huge amount of pair-production. This takes the form of a thermal radiation of particles known as Hawking radiation, which thousands of websites will happily explain to you. The 455 million Watts comes from the power equation – here it is, straight from Wikipedia:

If we use M = 8.85 x 10^11 kg (the other values are standard physical constants) this gives 4.55 x 10^8 W.

The laws of thermodynamics imply that proton-sized black hole would have a temperature of 139 billion degrees Celsius (thousands of times hotter than the core of a star, and not far off the core temperature at the height of a supernova).

How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality?
He doesn't.

What could we do to deal with this problem? Well, we could deny that Hawking radiation is real. It has never been directly observed. If it doesn't occur, then some of our most solid laws of physics would be violated in quite profound ways. Still, what the hell, let's violate them. It's only a model.

Stability of interaction between protons
  • Between actual protons in a stable nucleus: indefinitely
  • Between co-orbiting Schwarzschild protons: the orbit would decay within a few trillionths of a trillionth of a second.

Why? Because the theory of General Relativity tells us that any two black holes orbiting each other must lose orbital energy by emitting gravitational waves and fall in towards each other, merging into a single black hole at the moment that their event horizons touch.

The approach speed is given by the following equation:

Source Gravitational Radiation, Burtschinger & Taylor. This equation applies to black holes at a sensible distance apart (not contiguous ones), but what it tells us is that even if they orbited ten times further apart, they would still approach each other at about 60km/s (yes, kilometres per second). This is a fast approach for objects that are already ten thousand times closer than the size of an atom. And the closer they get, the faster they approach. (In Haramein's model, the event horizons are already touching.)

How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality?
He doesn't.

What could we do to deal with this problem? Actually, this is a very serious problem, because it's a direct result from our best theory of gravity, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which is the only theory we have that predicts and describes black holes. If we deny this theory as well, then what is a black hole? There won't be any such thing. We are supposed to be doing serious physics, and talking about black holes and gravity. Surely we can't get out of this one?

Maybe we could pretend they worked it all out wrong. Or maybe we could pretend that it's a quantum gravity effect, in the same way that electron orbitals are stable because, it's like, you know, quantum.

What happens when you look inside a proton?

  • in an actual proton: we see point-like constituents (quarks), and a measurable distribution of charge. Things don't disappear.
  • in a Schwarzschild proton: there is an event horizon of 1.32fm radius, and nothing that crosses this horizon can re-emerge. There is no way of looking inside.

This also follows directly from General Relativity. This messes up our proposed way out of the mass problem, because if the full mass of the black hole is experienced at short distances, then any electron or other particle used to probe inside a proton would simply vanish, making the mass black hole grow slightly. This follows from the definition of the Schwarzschild radius, which is what Haramein has used. It's a space-time horizon. Beyond this horizon, all possible measures of time are directed spatially in, and only in. Out ceases to exist, except in the past.

Yet many particle experiments, in particular all those that have involved deep inelastic scattering, make it clear that we can probe inside a proton.

How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality?
He doesn't.

What could we do to deal with this problem? I've no idea. I'll have a think, but this is starting to get a bit silly.

What this means for the Schwarzschild proton model

The premise of this model – that 'the proton may be considered as a Schwarzschild entity' – is pushing credibility to the point of ridiculousness. And this is before we even look at whether any of his conclusions mean anything.

In order to look at the conclusions, we've got to somehow force ourselves to ignore the discrepancies above, and pretend that somehow it could be a reasonable model.

What follows will illustrate why, even if we can allow ourselves to adopt this model, every one of Haramein's conclusions are meaningless anyway.

* * *

Haramein's six conclusions

Haramein models the proton as a black hole, as described above. The primary conclusions are:

1. The proportion of vacuum energy that would be required is similar to the ratio of the strengths of the strong and gravitational forces

2. Considering the nuclear force as a gravitational attraction is compatible with both nucleon and quark confinement

3. The orbital speed of two neighbouring protons turns out to be the speed of light
4. The time period for such an orbit turns out to be the same as the characteristic timescale of nuclear emissions involving the strong force

5. There is evidence for a scaling law between mass and radius, and this model of the proton places it much more convincingly in agreement with this

6. A value for the magnetic moment of the proton can be derived which turns out to be close to the measured anomalous magnetic moment of the proton

I'll take them one at a time – and I'll warn you in advance, it's a big mess, so this could take a while.

1. The proportion of vacuum energy that would be required to make a Schwarzschild proton is similar to the ratio of the strengths of the strong and gravitational forces (page 1, 1st & 2nd sentences)

He doesn't elaborate on this, it's just mentioned in passing.

Haramein chooses a value for the vacuum energy apparently at random from a whole host of available theoretical figures. This 'vacuum energy' has never been measured – and there are no convincing theoretical or experimental reasons to believe that it is even a true physical quantity. But who knows.

There is a brief calculation of this proportion, and the result is 1.78 x 10^-41, corresponding to very nearly 41 orders of magnitude.

He states correctly that the ratio of the gravitational to the strong force as "typically given as 38 or 39 orders of magnitude", so this ratio is at least 100 times lower than the value he calculated using the vacuum energy. And that's using Haramein's numbers.

So you couldn't call it strikingly similar.

(Unless you write one of them in percentage form, and the other not, as he did in the paper!)

Actually, between you and me, I think Haramein missed a trick here. Rather than just mention this in passing, he could have used it to suggest that the strong force is the interaction between the entire vacuum energy within the volume of each of the two protons, but with this energy taking the form of a gravitational dipole with a separation of the Planck length at the core of each proton. Then he wouldn't have needed any of the black hole stuff at all, and his argument wouldn't have been circular. That might have been interesting. It's still just random bollocks, but it's a radical idea involving mysterious vacuum stuff, he could have justified it with some really cool (Newtonian) equations, and it would have sounded good. Nassim, if you're reading, there's an idea for you!

Instead, all he's done here is to find two numbers that look similar (though they aren't) and note it without explanation, as if some significance should be obvious (which it isn't). So let's move on.

2. Considering the nuclear force as a gravitational attraction is compatible with both nucleon and quark confinement (page 1, 3rd sentence)

Quark confinement is an enormously complex subject dealing with the fact that quarks cannot exist outside of hadrons, which has nothing to do with, and is in no way compatible with, Haramein's model. He doesn't talk about quarks at all in this paper, so I'm going to write that one off as just a careless comment made by mistake. One I'm sure even he would admit.

[Edit: nope, he didn't admit it. "Au contraire, my dear Bob-a-thon ... It is quite relevant to mention that we have a possible means to explain the color force, which is more than one can say for the standard models." he tells us in his response, before proceeding to paint an extremely odd image of quarks as these freaky little animals invented out of thin air by physicists to enable them to sweep all their problems under the carpet without anyone noticing... it's quite cute...]

By nucleon confinement, he must mean the strength of the force that binds a proton or a neutron in a nucleus.

What he's saying (and he makes this more explicit on page 5) is that he has discovered that two Schwarzschild protons would be bound together by gravity alone with a force that bears a spooky resemblance to the strong force. The implication is that this model of the proton "offers the source of the binding energy as spacetime curvature". In other words, the strong force might be considered to be gravitational in nature, suggesting that this approach may lead to a way to dispense with the idea of a strong force altogether. This would unify the large and small scales in a significant way, and lead to a simpler and more integrated view of reality.

But let's look at what he's actually done.

First, a little history. In the late 17th Century, Newton realised that what caused planets to orbit the sun was no more than the familiar force of gravity. It wasn't long before he'd worked out the equation for gravitation, and proved definitively that it implied that any two objects in empty space would be bound in a stable gravitational orbit. The moon would orbit the Earth indefinitely; the Earth would orbit the Sun indefinitely; and so on.

In short, set in motion any two objects at any distance apart in empty space, and they will orbit each other for ever (so long as they're not set on a collision course). This is one of the most basic results of Newtonian gravity.

What has Haramein discovered? He has 'discovered' (using 17th century equations) that two Schwarzschild protons placed at 2.64fm apart and set in motion will be held together gravitationally in orbit.

But we've known for well over 300 years that gravity will bind ANY two objects in an orbit.

He's claiming that this is one of his significant conclusions of his model, and as a reason to justify the fact that protons can be modelled as black holes. Does this sound like a reasonable claim to you?

* * *

Now, what about the size of the force that Haramein has calculated. Will we find that it is spookily similar to the strong force that binds protons in the nucleus?

The gravitational binding force between two Schwarzschild protons is 7.49 x 10^47 dynes (page 3). This is in fact what you get if you stick any pair of equal mass black holes into Newton's gravitation equation – the result is the same no matter how big or small the black hole is. (It would be a silly thing to do, as Newton's laws don't apply to such extreme situations. But Haramein did it anyway.)In old units, this is 7.57 x 10^47 dynes. (Haramein has made some elementary rounding errors that have given him 7.49 instead of 7.57, but we can let this pass.)

To put this number in perspective, this force is:

  • 700 trillion trillion times the weight of mount Everest (= 10^21 dynes)
  • 500 thousand trillion times the weight of another planet Earth if you put it 'on top' of our one (= 1.5 x 10^30 dynes)
  • 90 billion trillion times the impact force of a 6 mile diameter asteroid hitting the Earth at 10 miles per second! (The one that wiped out the dinosaurs was this size. It had a mass of 10 trillion tonnes, and was slowed from 10 miles per second after penetrating a distance of about 15km into the crust. v²=2as, F=ma, every action has... you know the deal, you do the math. Then multiply by 90 billion trillion!)

I'm not joking. It really is a stupidly big number.

Haramein is suggesting – without, it seems, any awareness of how stupid this is – that this is the force of attraction between two protons within a single atom.

We can use an electron, one of the lightest particles known, to knock a proton out of a nucleus. We can even do it with a single photon of light. We don't need to throw 6-mile diameter asteroids at atoms to split them.

This result alone should be enough to convince anyone that the Schwarzschild proton is one of the worst thought-out models of the proton that it is possible to come up with.

3. The orbital speed of two neighbouring protons turns out to be the speed of light (page 3)

An object in orbit very close to a black hole will have a very fast orbit. For a small object at a distance of 1.5Rs (meaning one and a half times the Schwarzschild radius), the speed of the orbit is c, the speed of light. This is a result of general relativity, known as the photon sphere.

For larger objects with significant gravitational fields of their own, the problem becomes fiendishly complex. (As mentioned in the "stability of interaction" section above, energy loss through gravitational radiation guarantees that there is no stable close orbit anyway.)

Haramein's protons are both black holes, orbiting at 2Rs, which is further than the photon sphere. A correct calculation would give a lower speed, perhaps not far from two thirds of the speed of light. Haramein has used special relativity (which is only valid in the absence of strong gravitational fields), and got an incorrect result.

Even if he had calculated correctly, the result doesn't tell us anything new – this would apply to anything orbiting any black hole. So nothing to write home about, just some more inappropriate use of physics equations.

4. The time period for such an orbit turns out to be the same as the characteristic timescale of nuclear emissions involving the strong force (page 1)

What is the timescale of nuclear emissions involving the strong force? It's roughly how long it takes for a strong interaction to occur, and it's determined by the shortest time possible to traverse a strongly interacting particle.

In other words, to get the timescale of the strong force, take the size of a proton and divide it by the speed of light.

(To be a little more subtle, the reason why the timescales involved will be as short as possible in the case of the strong force is that the strong force coupling constant is approximately 1, which is – and I'm simplifying things a little, but the principle is true – as high as possible.)

Haramein has chosen to operate at the size of a proton. He has also chosen to operate close to the event horizon of a black hole, which means that any relevant speeds must be close to the speed of light. So, again, there is no result here.


That's as far as I've got for now. I'm doing this a bit at a time, because doing it properly is time-consuming. But you probably get the idea.

[Edit, 8th June: The scaling law just makes my heart sink when I look at it, it's such a confused mush. I'm still putting it off. :)

Meanwhile, please see the latest post here. Clear examples of Haramein (a) being clueless about all aspects of physics, and (b) making absurd claims for his insights into physics, including some truly outrageous claims about the Schwarzschild Proton ]

Do let me know if you think I've got anything wrong so far.


I'm not trying to suggest that Haramein made some mistakes with his model and should go away and make some corrections.

Haramein claims to be doing serious science. He claims to have unified the forces of nature, and to have created a unified field theory. He claims to be able to point out where all 'the other physicists' are going wrong. He claims, moreover, that his paper, The Schwarzschild Proton, has won serious academic acclaim. All of these are patently false.

The only sensible conclusion from looking at this example of his work is that he is utterly incompetent as a physicist – even with the help of his hired academics, whose "advice and careful reading of the manuscript" didn't reveal any of the myriad of nonsensical implications that a little exploration should have found.

He knows that taking on the air of authority of a research physicist will give weight to his outlandish ideas, many of which are in the language of physics. And he knows that this will bring him followers and cash. Indeed it does.

[Edit 22nd July: Response to this article by Nassim Haramein...]

Response from Nassim Haramein

Nassim Haramein's Resonance Project has published a detailed response to this article. To find out more and to read his response for yourself, please see here. Thank you.

Return to Main post
Quick link to this post:


«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 313   Newer›   Newest»
Loek said...

Hi Bob,

This lengthy comment is split in two and has the purpose for you not to need to spend anymore time on the refutation of the work of Nassim Haramein. So far you have put forward some serious questions I think he first has to answer before you would need to proceed. To explain my point of view I need to use the philosophy of science and you might need to think a little bit out of the box. Before I start I want to say that I love mathematics and really believe that is the language to use to prove theories in physics.

As long as people agree on basic facts one can use a common language, which is in the realm of physics mathematics. Then you can prove one another theorems using mathematics. But the moment people disagree on basic facts there is no common language anymore and certainly not mathematics. Although it is an extremely powerful language with an excellent curriculum, it can not overcome this type of disagreements. Mathematics is a language totally consisting of circular arguments. That might be quite in disagreement with what you think, because you can prove anything with math, but the fact is that the left side of an assignment must be equal to the right side of the assignment in order to produce correct results. Luckily it is, otherwise could we have never flown to the moon as it provides a complex framework with predictable results. The fact that 1 + 1 = 2 can be proven with the reversal that 2 - 1 = 1. If that would not be what is happening, math would become useless. The usefulness of math is exactly that left and right must be equal, which is equivalent to saying that it is using circular arguments all the time. To understand each others math you must exactly know what is meant with each term used. Using different definitions of the same terminology in math is the perfect situation to talk along parallel lines into infinity. That understanding is done outside math, it is first done in plain English and can afterwards continued in math. In the end math will give the final prove, but beforehand one must agree what is meant with each term exactly.

Loek said...

A theory tries to explain phenomena using a combination of facts and definitions. Both should support each other. If the defitions do not explain or predict the facts, the theory will be abandoned eventually. Roughly speaking, the facts will stay. You started with pointing out some problems of the theory of Nassim Haramein and I think that is already that serious, that Nassim Haramein should get some time to answer.
First you point out that there is never found any proton with a mass equal to the mass of a Schwarzschild proton. Quite serious problem I would say.
This mass is needed by Nassim in order to explain how gravitational forces can replace the strong force and to let the proton appear on the red line of his log Mass/log radius graph. That graph is at the heart of his line of thinking. It is for this graph, that he is needing a proton with that big mass. Without it, he can hardly claim that there exists a fractional layered reality. The only way a proton can have that mass put in such a small volume is to stipulate that the proton is a black hole.
Next you show that the proton is not behaving like a black hole. If it would, then the protons in any nucleus would merge immediately, next that it would have a very high temperature, which is never found. So Nassim Haramein stipulates a proton being a black hole, but not behaving like a black hole at all.
Before you can continu the conversation with Nassim Haramein c.s. he should get the opportunity to explain this discrepancy. Is the proton a different type of black hole then any other black hole? If so, why is he then calling it a black hole? If not, why does it then not act like a black hole? Can he show the math that a proton is a black hole, but not acting like a black hole? How can a nucleus consisting of a lot of protons have a mass, which is never measured, not merging instantaneously as it should be being a black hole and be stable at the same time?

If Nassim Haramein is serious about his theory he should explain these questions in your mathematical language with your equations. Or he should come up with alternatives, which give reasonable solutions. But before you can continu any conversation you both should come to an agreement what is really happening. For that to happen he should come up with some very convincing new solutions. Now it is utterly unclear why he calls a proton a black hole, but does not behave like a black hole. So what is his definition of a black hole? As long as that is not clear you will both use the same term, but in the mean time define it completely different.
I think it is time for Nassim Haramein to go back to the drawing table and that you would give him time to explain, which gives you the opportunity to do all other things.

I think you went wrong in the article at one particular remark, when you talk about the magnitude of the gravitational and strong force. It might be that it is to complex for me as I am reading physics in a foreign language, but never withstanding I see his main argument in this paragraph being the ratio of the difference in mass between the Schwarzschild proton and the standard proton. That is his first argument and has the needed ratio. The other one seems to be the binding energy, something like the medium to transport the energy. The energy results from the masses of these protons. But that is not crucial for your other remarks.

With kind regards,


Bob said...

Hi Loek. You've raised some very interesting questions.

It might appear that I'm going a little over the top, but as JT's comments on the main post made clear, there are people who are taken in by Haramein's papers because they're presented in an apparently rigorous, scientific, mathematical, academic way.

So I think it's reasonable to look in detail at one of Haramein's papers exactly as it is presented, and discuss it in the context of physics. Why? Because it is undeniably presented and promoted as a physics paper, using the language and equations of physics.

I think I will take your advice and submit my refutation to him, but not until I've finished. I doubt I'll hear anything, but I may be surprised. I may even hear from one of his troupe before I send it, who knows.

You're right that the root problem is that there isn't a common language. I doubt very much that Haramein (or indeed people such as our friend JT) would suddenly start agreeing with my perspective. But that doesn't mean that it's not worth saying - I think it's essential that this kind of information is out there.

I don't quite agree with you about maths being circular. I really don't want to argue over the philosophy of it, because I don't think it's relevant here, but 1+1=2 isn't an empty statement - it's a concrete truth of experience, abstracted. If I have a pen and another pen, I have two pens. If I have a carrot and another carrot, I have two carrots. I can match each of my pens to a carrot, and vice versa, so there is a concept of 'two' that is universal. One anything and another one always gives two of them. So, abstracting, 1+1=2. It's concrete, it's useful, and it exists with or without the concept of 2-1=1. There's no way you can seriously imply that it's an empty statement, or that it depends on context, or that there are situations that it doesn't apply to.

If someone doesn't like it, that's just a little unfortunate. Of course this doesn't mean everyone should love maths or that mathematicians are better than non-mathematicians or that maths gives exclusive access to any ultimate truth, nothing like that. Whether or not it has value is another matter. But once something is true in maths, it's just true.

I'll address the significance or otherwise of Haramein's Mass/radius graph when I discuss that part of his paper.

My view - and this is only my view, as I don't know his mind - is that he calls his proton a black hole because he likes black holes. He doesn't generally define the terms that he's using, so it's not surprising that he doesn't define this one or that he uses it without any respect for what it means. The internet is full of people who love to appropriate scientific terms like black holes, quantum theory, space-time curvature, vacuum energy. They love to talk about these things, and they feel that having not studied them their minds are free from scientific shackles and they can bring new insights. But that's as ridiculous as me talking about your mother without being constrained by getting to know her.

For those of us who have spent time exploring these phenomena (and I mean real open-minded exploring, not being spoonfed second-hand ideas, which is what some people seem to think education means), who have devoted time to getting to know these concepts from many many angles, it is immediately obvious when someone who claims to understand them is simply talking rubbish about them. In exactly the same way as it would be for you if I pretended to know your mother and started talking about her in public - it would make sense for you to take everything I say and compare it to reality, and you'd quickly conclude that I wasn't who I said I was.

If that happened, would you then come to me and ask me to clarify what I meant? I don't think you would. I hope that picture helps makes the situation a little more clear.

Bob said...

Regarding the ratio, I was referring to the 2nd and 3rd sentences in his abstract: "We find that only a very small percentage (~10^-39%) of the vacuum fluctuations available within a proton volume need be cohered and converted to mass-energy in order for the proton to meet the Schwarzschild condition. This proportion is similar to that between gravitation and the strong force"

(He also gives a value here of 40 orders of magnitude for the latter proportion, in contrast to the "38 or 39" he gives for the same thing on page 5. If you swap them around, it looks less impressive! 38 or 39 is more reasonable for contiguous protons, so I've used that.)

I think you are referring to something he says on page 5: thank you for pointing this out. That was very well spotted - this is an additional claim that I had omitted from my list. I'll add this to the six I have, and change the title to 'the seven main conclusions', which is nice.

Also, I'm going to try to make it more clear which part of the paper I'm referring to when I talk about something he's said.

Thank you for your input, Loek, it's much appreciated.

Physics Prof. said...

Hi Bob,

I am a Physics professor (I have a Ph.D in theoretical physics, and am a tenured professor of physics). One of my 1st year undergraduate students was speaking very highly of this "Nassim Haramein" fellow. I asked who this person was, and the student characterized him as a revolutionary physicist. So, as I have never heard of him, I googled him, and finally came across your page.

While I think your blog is amazing, you really are wasting your time. Some people will simply believe that ice is hot and fire is cold, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I've had many people argue with me about quantum mechanics (my primary field of research) with absolutely no maths or physics background. No matter how many times your present counter arguments to their claims, they will not budge from their views.

Anyway, best of luck!

Bob said...

Thanks, Physics Prof. Glad you like it.

Not sure about your encouragement, though! :)

I'm aware that this would be a waste of time if my intention was to convert Nassim's fans, as it's clear that most of them have little or no interest in reasoning, and they value whatever they happen to like the sound of far higher than the investigation of truth. But they're not the only people in the world.

When I first looked, I was quite shocked to find there were no good quality discussions of his ideas out there. There are plenty of people who want to check this kind of thing out, and want to know the truth, and it can really help to see that someone has thought it through. I'm sure you'd never say it was a waste of time to put the truth out. I know that many of the people who've emailed me or commented don't think it was a waste of time. And I'm sure it wouldn't be a waste of time to point your student in this direction.

So I'm writing with people like them in mind. And also for my own enjoyment. I've been revisiting general relativity recently, and one good way to get clear on a subject is to write about it, because then you feel you really need to know what you're talking about. (Well, some of us do, anyway!)

Thanks for your comments, though, I shall take them in the positive way you intended! It's much appreciated.

Physics Prof. said...

Hi again Bob,

I always enjoyed GR, but never quite enough to go beyond a graduate course on the subject. If you are revisiting GR, then you may enjoy the following paper from:

(from the LANL archive under high energy physics theory). I know Giri, and while the paper does have some (potentially serious) holes, it does illustrate that if you have an idea that could solve a non-trivial problem (in this case the Riemann Hypothesis) you best bet it to get it out there for serious scientific debate. As far as I know, Giri is attempting to get this peer reviewed and published in a top Math/Physics journal. If only Nassim would do the same!

Best wishes,

Bob said...

Nassim has certainly tried to get his work peer reviewed, bless him, and it hasn't worked out for him yet. (Obviously it's the scientific community's fault for not understanding it...)

A connection to the Riemann hypothesis - that would really be something. Thanks, I'll have a look. I don't think I'll up to doing a critique on that just yet, though!

Pippo said...

I want to thank you.

I am a member of the "non-academic audience interested in his theories". I saw Haramein speak in New York City in 2008 and found his presentation to be compelling. While I found his claims to be outlandish and was suspicious, I was also intrigued. If ever his "science" was rigorous, it would indeed be a breakthrough, and fun too. He does have a knack for making captivating intuitive associations between things that get the imagination fired up.

I have been looking for some kind of credible analysis of his ideas as he presents them in his papers since then. All I found was gullible fanaticism or flip dismissal, which were not satisfying. I even asked a couple of physicists I'd come across if they would take a look at his "scaling law" paper and the closest thing I got to a response was, "never heard of him".

Your clear presentation made it clear for me that he's having a fun fantasy.

The thing I appreciate most about your having taken the time to explain the flaws in his paper is that you did so in a way that is sympathetic to non-academics like myself who are just curious and don't have the training to critically analyze his work. Thanks for your generous effort and lack of condescension.

Bob said...

Thanks Pippo, that's really good to hear.

I can fully understand why physicists don't want to give this kind of nonsense the time of day. But it is a shame. The vast majority of physics looks like nonsense to a lot of people, so how are they to tell?

I have to confess, one of the reasons I stopped where I did (before taking on the scaling law section) is because I realised Haramein had also done an entire paper on a scaling law, and my heart sank. They're not really the same thing, though.

His other paper - the one you mentioned - is a complicated and confused attempt to prise a fractal structure out of the Universe that fits Haramein's pre-conceived ideas. I'm glad you're not asking me about that, because I really don't want to go there! :)

The scaling law used for the Schwarzschild Proton is much more straightforwardly flawed, so I've no excuse not to just finish the job. Maybe one day!

Thanks for taking the time to write, I appreciate it.

Anonymous said...














Anonymous said...











"BEFORE THE BIG BANG" {1997} ...





Anonymous said...



Bob said...

Hi Mark the Truth-Seeker.

Thanks for your thoughts (though they are a little tricky to read in capitals). I've not come across Sternglass or his writing. It's an interesting area to study, but it's unlikely to be something I'll get around to reading. I don't really see how it's relevant to Haramein's ideas, other than the vague connection that Sternglass questions the standard model, and Haramein pretends to question it.

I don't agree that "if Haramein will just simply read Sternglass's book and incorporate some of his ideas into his theory then he will have a unified field theory." My reasons for not agreeing with this will be clear if you read any of the post above. Haramein's "theory" is a complete nonsense - it's a joke. Really it is. It won't get any better through him reading Sternglass.

There are lots of very good reasons to challenge the Standard Model. Thousands of physicists are working on hundreds of different ways of doing this as we speak. There are lots of theories, and time will tell which will prevail.

If Haramein wants to challenge the Standard Model, he first needs to understand what the Standard Model says, understand all the ways in which it works so beautifully in so many situations (this is crucial), and then see precisely where its drawbacks are. Unfortunately for Haramein, this would mean having to learn physics. Oh, and mathematics. From the beginning.

Haramein is no fool - he knows there's an easier way. To lead thousands of people into believing that he's at the forefront of field theory, all he needs to do is give talks to people who understand physics less than he does. He has confidence, charm, and lots of scientific sounding words to impress people with.

All he has to do is claim to be solving the mysteries of the Universe, and present lots of incomprehensible fancy-sounding ideas, peppered with just enough naively intuitive connections to make it look feasible, and bingo! The 'other scientists' also present incomprehensible theories (to most people) but usually without the charm or the naively intuitive sweeteners.

Real scientists are also hampered by the desire to ensure all avenues are explored thoroughly and that all points are explained accurately and precisely, and that all data are explored with the appropriate statistical rigour. This is all just boring for most people. Haramein doesn't have to bother, so he can focus on PR and making money out of people. All of this gives him a massive advantage when it comes to convincing a non-scientific audience.

It's a sad sight, and - when it's as manipulative as Haramein - it's a very ugly sight.

The only way you can "help resolve conflict between mainstream physicists and guys like Haramein" is to encourage Haramein to either learn some physics or admit to all his followers that he's a fraud. Neither of these are likely to happen.

His followers, yourself included, would do well to gently let go of the tightly-held belief that Haramein knows what he's talking about, entertain the possibility that they may have been misled, and start investigating for themselves.

I hope this helps in your truth-seeking. If you have reason to disagree with anything specific that I'm saying, let me know.

Anonymous said...







Jonathan Shock said...

Lots and lots of people seem to have taken this hook, line and sinker. I was just asked by a friend if I thought that they should attend this event, which is advertised through Facebook:!/event.php?eid=116652285024140&ref=nf

As a high energy physicist my answer was unequivocally no, unless they want to witness a phenomenon and they are wearing their strongest skeptics hat.

There are many, many people out there making these claims and while I admire your determination and effort here you are likely to soon find yourself giving up as there are just so many out there. This guy seems to be making even more of an impact than the usual bunch.

Bob said...

Thanks Jonathan. It's a strange phenomenon, isn't it. Kind of fascinating. In a sick way.

You're right, the vast majority aren't going to be put off by something so irrelevant as facts and reasoning.

Really I just wanted to post some clear thinking up here so it could be found and explored by those who want to, and I've kind of done that - it's not some massive ongoing project.

It'd be great if someone could take this info and make it into a attractive website or a snappy video. That's not my forte (I haven't even figured out how to change this horrible wallpaper).

I don't think many people who fall for Haramein's razzle want to sit and read dowdy-looking explanations that require them to think for themselves or challenge their favourite views. But here it is nevertheless. The truth has its own way of pervading things when the conditions are right. I just hope that comes sooner rather than later.

Lori said...

Thanks for the info about Sternglass's work. There's another guy named Robert Oldershaw that also "scales" the gravitational constant G in his Self-Similar Cosmological Model. In this way, the proton can be seen as a Kerr-Newman black hole. I am a Fractal Cosmologist and believe that the universe is "fractal" at all scales and that in order for the laws of physics to work correctly at different scales that the "laws of physics" must also be scaled accordingly.

Oldershaw and Sternglass do this by scaling the gravitational coupling constant G. I agree with "ANONYMOUS" in that if Haramein would incorporate this into his model, that would bring him one step closer to "unification" and would resolve all of the issues addressed in this discussion. I have brought this to his attention recently. At first he rejected the idea because of his attachment to his scaling laws but what he didn't realize is that his scaling laws would still "work" if he applied this correction to his equation.

Here is a link to Oldershaw's work:


Bob said...

Thanks for the link, FractalWoman.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to explore in detail every avenue that is opened for me, but I appreciate the thought.

I find it difficult to believe that the universe is fractal at all scales. Is that a serious statement? The universe looks extraordinarily different on different scales. Planets aren't very much like galaxies. The molecular scale isn't very much like the stellar scale.

Some limited scales, perhaps. Within galaxies, or among galaxy distributions (before all structure flattens out at a few billion light years - there's nothing self-similar about that), but surely not all scales?

If Haramein could come up with any actual results and produce a paper that wasn't full of blatant discrepancies from reality, that would indeed be an improvement.

If he could present his work without misrepresenting physics and displaying misunderstanding after misunderstanding about basic physics, that would also be good. If that's your task, then good luck to you.

Lori said...

I think your confusing self-similarity with self-sameness. In self-similarity, each scale is similar but not exactly the same. For example, atoms have a nucleus and a "bunch of stuff" around it. Galaxies have a nucleus and a bunch of stuff around it. Cells have a nucleus and a bunch of stuff around it. The earth, the sun all follow this model. This is self-similarity at it's best.

A fractal universe is not just about the distribution of matter although that is one piece of the very confusing puzzle.

I believe that Haramein made a big mistake by making a big deal about his Schwarzschild Proton paper. He has co-written many papers that are much more interesting than that. His idea to add torque and coriolis forces to Einstein's field equations leads to some interesting conclusions. For instance, space-time doesn't just warp but it "curls". This explains why "things" in our universe spin perpetually.

It is not my job to help anyone but myself. I am trying to understand the universe. I have my own ideas about how the universe works and when I find someone that "rings true" to me then I pay attention. His theory is very close to mine in that black holes exist at all scales and are the source of all creation. I believe this to be true and many ancient cultures such as the Vedas say exactly the same thing, only they didn't know about black holes so they refer to it as "the dark cave". In the bible, creation comes from darkness.

So as much as black holes are destroyers, they are also creators. The cause the universe to "self organize" into the patterns that we see in our universe, from the atom right up to the galactic formations that we see. How do I know this? I don't but my research has let me to this conclusion.


Bob said...

What you're saying doesn't connect with any definition of fractal that I'm aware of. There are objects at some scales that have a nucleus and things go around them, but that doesn't make something a fractal.

The universe displays a massive lack of nuclei-with-things-going-around-them in the 12 orders of magnitude between 1nm and 1km. It's no more "self-similar on all scales" than a cup of tea.

Also spin is an inevitable consequence of all mainstream theories of physics - I've no idea where Haramein (or you) got this idea that it somehow would need explaining separately. Any cosmology that has a non-uniform distribution of matter + gravity + expansion gives rise to spin as a natural and inescapable by-product. And once a system has angular momentum, why should it change?

The same goes for self-organisation. It's an inescapable result of any mainstream theories of gravity, motion, fluid dynamics. With or without black holes, the result would be much the same.

Thanks for your thoughts anyway. I prefer logic and evidence to feeling and resonance, so we're hardly going to agree are we. :)

Lori said...

OK, I guess that did sound a bit lame and not very clear. I was referring to the scaling and self-similar properties of systems that tend to generate fractal patterns. For instance, the galaxy structures that form around black holes are clearly fractal in nature. Here's an example
of a real galaxy together with a Mandelbrot galaxy:

The Mandelbrot set is at the center of my fractal cosmology but I won't get into that at this point.

I believe that it is the black hole at the center of the galaxy that causes the real galaxy to self-organize into this pattern. Actually, to be more precise, the galaxy and the black hole co-evolve. It is not a one way street. (See: supermassive black holes, "the fathers of galaxies")

Here is a fractal pattern that I developed that seems to be a kind of "fractal template" for other phenomenon involving black holes like supernova explosions and various obscure galaxy shapes.

If you don't want to read it all (I know you don't have time for that) then just look at the pictures. The pictures say it all.

So black holes appear at different scales and fractal patterns appear to form around them, both at the galactic scale and at the stellar scale. Why not the atomic scale? Why not the universal scale?

"The universe displays a massive lack of nuclei-with-things-going-around-them "

You don't see the nucleus of the black hole of our universe, because we are on the inside of the nucleus - black hole.

This is where scaling Newton's gravitational constant G comes in. Because without scaling "G", we would clearly be ripped apart by the tidal forces of this universal black hole in traditional Hollywood style. However, when you scale G as Oldershaw and others are doing, then we could easily be living inside a black hole and black holes can easily exist at the atomic scale as the various forms of matter that we observe. Again, Oldershaw's recent work clearly shows how this can be so.

On the outside of our universe is probably an even more fantastic looking galaxy type fractal shape. We can never know. It is a moot point.

And yes, we will probably never agree ;-)

Bob said...

I've no doubt that there are dynamics in the universe that give rise to fractal patterns. Approximations to fractals are commonly the result when a physical process is non-linear and operates at a range of scales. So we see something that approximates to a fractal in clouds on earth, and we see it in molecular clouds light-years across. That's completely different to saying that the universe is a fractal at all scales, which is clearly untrue.

Physical approximations to fractals arise at the range of scales for which the dynamical processes that generate them are operating.

What's also untrue is that there'd be intense tidal forces in a black hole the size of the universe. The bigger the black hole, the weaker the tidal forces. The observable universe does appear to have some properties in common with a black hole - spherical symmetry, an event horizon, a singularity. But it would be silly to then conclude that it is one. Especially now that the expansion of matter in it is observed to be accelerating.

There's so much real science out there with a clear rational basis that makes precise statements and tests itself rigourously against reality. If it works, we learn something about the universe. It's truly amazing that we can do that.

That's why I'm not especially interested in 'science' that seems to say "I have an idea, here are some random things that seem to suggest it, and here are some conclusions I've jumped to about the entire universe... and it's all so vague that you can never disprove it." It's pretty, perhaps, imaginative, fine, but it's not science and it doesn't reflect the universe - only the imagination of the person conceiving it.

Here's a very real question for you. Can you explain to me - using something like Haramein's theory, modified along the lines of Sternglass or Oldershaw or any other way, and using clear language, not vague terms in quotes - how something such as a proton could be a black hole, with an event horizon, and yet we're still able to discern its contents? That would be interesting.

Anonymous said...








Evan said...

Hey Bob,

In regards to your criticism that Nassin uses circular logic:

Wouldn't a theory of everything have to employ circular logic?

If linear logic is used, where a starting premise leads along a linear path to an ending conclusion, and this conclusion did not then account for the starting premise, the theory would not be self contained. It would require additional explanations for the original premise, and therefore would not be a theory of everything.

I hope you do submit your critique to Nassim, and hope he responds. These conversations need to happen.


The Resonance Project Foundation said...

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

Bob said...

Hi, The Resonance Project Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

george said...

Here is the current update of trans dimensional unified field theory. You can access it on the internet at

I also have a physics group at

Thank you.

George James Ducas

george said...

D^20 and Forces Arising within Atomic Nuclei
In Trans-Dimensional Unified Field Theory the space matrix in a black hole is at D^20. This means the energy is E^4 or D^20 compared to our highest measuring unit of E or D^5 as current science measures. This means that the forces holding the space matrix together are strong due to a denser and more complex space matrix and also associated with greater mass in a black hole. The identification of mass is in mass space matrix superstring where
Mass = D^3T^2
And since an atom is a model of a Trans-Dimensional universe, then those forces binding the matrix at the nucleus and at the centre of the nucleus of an atom are the highest. Also particles are the interference patterns of the matrix generating particles and black hole at particle centres and also at the centre of the atom. But since these masses of the space are outside our realm of perception and measure, much like the mass of the ether of outer space which is transparent to higher atomic mass, these quantities do not figure into our systems of measurement. The exception is when these large quantities are unravelled as in an atomic explosion. This also explains the inaccessible dark matter or energy of the universe. But we can figure large quantities without dimensional analysis. We know that all force measured by our measurements acted upon in our lower dimensions is D^4. It does matter what the components are, electrical, gravity, or whatever, force components result in D^4. We can also figure that though the degree of complexity of the dimensions, we can get the D^4 projection of D^20 near a black hole. Hence the following is a conclusion:
Black hole = D^20
D^4 = D^20 / D^16
D^4 = (G M M / D^2) * D^16/D^16 = (G M M / D^2) V^16 T^16/D^16
D^4 = (G M M / D^2) C^16 T^16 / D^16 = (G M M / D^2) C^16/ G^4 D^16
D^4 = (D^4) C^16/ G^4 D^16 = C^16 / G^4 D^12 = C^16 /G^4 C^12 T^12
D^4 = C^4 / G^4 T^12; G = 1/T^4
D^4 = C^4 G^3 / G^4
D^4 = C^4 / G ; which makes the matrix binding force very high and the string force that overcomes any possibility for the matrix unbinding.

Bob said...

er... right...

Michael_C said...

Dear Bob,
Like (some) others, I thank you for your patient, kind, persistent, respectful presentation of the problems to be found in NH's paper and videos. It's lovely to see such a balanced approach; such is so rare on the Net where uncivil polemic is almost universally the norm. As a non-physicist/non-specialist I really appreciate it and have learned a lot reading through your blog tonight. I actually search several times for an exposition such as yours and finally find something I can understand.
I found it sad that Physics Professor (PP) seems to find it a poor use of time to enlighten the masses. Sad, because the universities don't see teaching and serving the larger community as their responsibility any more. Well, I'll get off my soapbox on that one.
(a few posts coming...)

Michael_C said...

A true genius, Buckminster Fuller, said "Of course, our failures are a consequence of many factors, but possibly one of the most important is the fact that society operates on the theory that specialization is the key to success, not realizing that specialization precludes comprehensive thinking" (Wikipedia). That's an appeal of NH, and a blind spot of PP: a comprehensive view of reality and the universe. Of course Einstein was working towards the unified field theory, and others are - but maybe if intention does influence result (doesn't it?) then we as a race won't perceive that unity unless we are also unified in our intention, which would preclude all competition and ill-will (wouldn't it?). That in turn sounds naïve, but as someone put it, we've only been at this science project for 500, or even generously called it 2500 years. What might the science of a race that had been practicing it for 50,000 or 100,000 or a million years look like (since these are all very short blinks in the cosmic scale of time). Maybe for such a race, it would be obvious, how shall I put it, that "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge" (or individual vs. community) awareness will need to be integrated to penetrate the deep questions of the true nature of the universe, and our place in it.

Michael_C said...

Bob, I say this with the greatest respect and appreciation, I also find you somewhat naïve in your faith in science, as if it were practiced in a vacuum. Rupert Sheldrake (RS) is a straight-ahead experimental scientist. He has proposed experiments to test, for example, gravity as a "law" (rather than a "tendency"). How he has been attacked! But as yet, none of his attackers have set up the empirical study RS is simply suggesting. (Seven Experiments to Change the World.) So, with I suspect many other of your readers, I find myself deeply annoyed by the phoney bravado of science types who act as if it's all pretty clear, just a few loose ends, when apparently there are really big question marks yet unresolved by our current materialist science. Questions such as life, consciousness, the origin of the universe, and others. RS is so much fun in this regard. He asks for example, did the "law of gravity" exist before the big bang? If so, how (in the absence of matter)? He points out that materialist science likes to avoid metaphysics, and yet its own positions necessarily involve metaphysics too. So I think as a race we're just not quite mature, but all this is inching us forward in maturity.
I confess to feeling disappointed that NH is, apparently, too good to be true. I really want to believe him. As someone trying to be truly (not selectively) sceptical, I'm moving him into my "I don't know if that's true, so I'm not going to believe it, maybe it's true" category. I'm devoting my life to being sceptical at this level. It takes a lot of presence and honesty to admit the notion that perhaps nothing, really nothing that I believe is true.
Anyway, NH does bring up a lot of anomolies I still crave solutions for. From memory, they are:
-Strong force that holds protons together - I'm with NH on this. I never bought that when I read about it in high school. Where does it come from, how does it work?
-Big bang, like "the belief [out there on the Net] that nothing for no reason exploded into something which for no reason organized itself into more and more complicated bits that ended up as dinosaurs."
-How the pyramids really were constructed - I'm again with NH not only that ropes and logs just don't cut it, and, you couldn't get a Ph.D. in archaeology if you seriously question that.
So, you have changed one person's mind, but, I've still got questions needing answers (hm, is that true?).
: )

Bob said...

Hi Michael, and thanks for your thoughtful comments.

One of the big problems of science is that if you study the laws of nature, you find that it's impossible without some extremely technical and complex ways of thinking. If it could be done without all that stuff, believe me it would be!

Let me put it another way - human minds are not built to find the entire universe intuitive. We're built to think about things on our own scale, things in our own experience, things we've evolved to have to deal with. Things that are very different (like an atom or a galaxy) are way outside of this range. The problem is not really that the laws of nature are complicated - it's that our intuitive sense of how things should be gets in the way.

The development of technical and mathematical methods is the way that humans have found to bridge this gap between our human-scale intuition, imagination, creativity, gut-feelings (which scientists need and make use of as much as anyone) and the fact that the objects being studied are very very different to anything in our experience. It's a way of filtering out our human-scale prejudices, which are very, very strong.

It's not the only way - there are spiritual ways of bridging that gap, for instance... but it's certainly the only way that has, historically, given reliable results, made definite predictions, given rise to testable theories, and allowed us to build up a consistent picture of nature.

So when it comes to scientists communicating with people who haven't spent their life honing these ways of thinking, it's extremely difficult to do. It's never going to be possible to explain the whole picture to someone who hasn't learned the necessary language. Scientists don't spend their lives making things unnecessarily complicated and then refusing to explain them in plain English - they spend their lives doing what they need to do in as simple a way as possible, and then trying their best to translate some small part of it that can be encapsulated in an image or a non-technical concept so that other people can share in their knowledge. It's incredibly difficult.

I think it's fair to say that most scientists love their subject. The "heart knowledge" is very definitely there. It's not dry and technical knowledge - it's a beautiful and wonderful world of understanding. But to open up and really experience that world requires a lot of training.

Scientists can always do better in trying to explain their subject - and arrogance obviously doesn't help. But the public receiving it need also to appreciate that it's very difficult, and that there is actually a reason why science training takes so long and gets so complex. If people demand to know the whole story, they simply won't get it, unless they're prepared to learn some of the techniques that are needed to study nature free from human-scale intuitive prejudices.

Bob said...

If someone not fluent in these techniques continually insists that their "intuitive" version of some aspect of science is right and the scientists are wrong, then they do, unfortunately, just make a bit of an ass of themselves.

I can see why some people might think it's arrogant to say that about Haramein... but it's nonetheless true.

What I find amazing is that supporters of Haramein don't see it as arrogant that:
* he claims to have discovered a unified field theory and completed the work of Einstein,
* he claims to have real insights into physics that mainstream science has missed entirely,
* he claims that all attempts to show that he's wrong come from inability to see outside the box,
* he claims to have all the answers to solve our future energy crisis and so on and so on,
* he claims that the hundreds of thousands of scientists throughout the world are incapable of figuring these things out or of acknowledging the brilliant creativity of his ideas

I find it stunning how far people will go not to see just how arrogant this man actually is, but choose to see science as arrogant instead.

Is science filled with a phoney bravado and a sense of everything being clear? I don't think it is. I certainly hope I haven't given that impression. Of course there are lots of things that remain mysteries, they should be treated as such, and I believe they ARE treated as such by science.

The question is what do you do when faced with a mystery? Taking your example of the strong force - do you make something up that looks impressive, ignore the fact that it contradicts things we already know to be true, and claim to have proved things (as Haramein has done)? Or do you find out what we actually know now about the strong force, and how we claim to know it?

To answer your question, I can only suggest that you investigate what physicists all around the world have been doing for the last few decades in nuclear and particle physics experiment and theory research. Of course I wouldn't expect anyone to 'buy' it from reading about it in high school - there's a bit more to it than that! We have an extremely clear picture of what is going on within nuclei - it's one of the most beautiful pictures that science has ever uncovered. There are many shaky bits of science out there, but QCD isn't one of them.

Haramein's proposal is to ditch QCD, one of the most powerful theories physics has ever produced, the theory behind decades of particle physics, and replace it with an inconsistent and nonsensical idea about black holes and gravity. I don't think it's arrogant to say that this is extremely silly.

What I think is naive is to underestimate what hundreds of thousands of dedicated and highly intelligent human beings have been doing for the last few decades.

Michael_C said...

Hi Bob,
Would you have my post confused with another post? Because although you've touched on a few key words, I'm not sure you got what I said.

I'm saying I'm giving up on Nassim, not sure why that isn't clear. I'm not defending him. I found science arrogant long before I saw Nassim. So your statement, "I find it stunning how far people will go not to see just how arrogant this man actually is, but choose to see science as arrogant instead" is not describing me. Remember Ernest Rutherford, Nobel Prize, 1908, who said, "Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of the atom is talking moonshine.” There are a lot of others still out there with the same kind of attitude. Rutherford never lost his job for making that statement. There is what Lynne McTaggart calls "macho materialism" instead.

Michael_C said...

Come on Bob, please give us a few quotes from established, practicing scientists to the effect "there are lots of things that remain mysteries, they should be treated as such, and ...ARE treated as such by science." Because what I hear is more like, "there are still a few details to work out." Real mysteries, such as crop circles, are studiously ignored. Over to you on that Bob!

I appreciate the need for jargon and methodology. I have that in my field too. What I don't appreciate is close-mindedness. That's why I bring up Rupert Sheldrake. He's describing empirical science that could address for example whether the force of gravity is a constant or a tendency. ESP also. He's a trained, published empirical scientist. And yet he is a pariah in the scientific community. Why is that?

Michael_C said...

I didn't use the word "intuitive." I would use the word "integrative." For example, what do the marvels of how the atom operates have to teach me/us about how to live my life? Again, after one 500 years of science, that question seems naive or worse. But how will we look at it all if we're still doing science 50,000 years from now? At such a time, perhaps our primary identification will be with oneness and interconnectedness, rather than, as now, apparent separation into me/mine, you/yours.

Maybe you are involved in the pure search for truth, but not all science is. That is a myth. Scientists have their own filters, egos, agendas and incentives. It's quite clear if you identify the incentives each individual has, ALL the incentives and motives.

Whether intention influences results is a fundamental question, and Sheldrake describes experiments to test that (intention influencing result) but the mainstream has no interest in that. Although that, and several of Sheldrake's other experiments, would be of tremendous interest to the masses.

Thanks for the note on strong force. I didn't know about QCD.


Bob said...

Hi Michael,

I wasn't saying that you were defending Nassim - I was talking generally about the reasons people use to defend him. The post is about his theories, so I figured it would be ok to talk generally about him. Sorry if that was unclear.

Aren't scientists always saying there are lots of things that are beyond our current grasp? I guess not everyone listens to scientists as much as me.

You're right that interconnectedness is crucial. I understand what you're saying about integration, and I can sympathise with that. It's especially important with issues like climate change, which actually DO connect with every aspect of life. The fact that so many people refuse to acknowledge the perspective that science has to offer in this area illustrates how distant people feel science to be.

For other subjects, such as your example of the marvels of the atom, they will teach anyone who cares about the marvels of the atom, for its own sake, for its own beauty. I don't think it all has to be about how you live your life.

Bob said...

There's an important distinction between physics and materialism. One explores the physical nature of the world we're in, and the other asserts that the whole of nature has a physical basis. Do you see the difference? Physics is not the same as materialism - people make this mistake all the time.

It's like the difference between a guy exploring every bit of land on Earth, and another guy claiming that all of Earth is land. The sea is not a problem for the first guy - only for the second guy.

Of course some physicists are also materialists, but they ought to be clear-thinking enough to understand the distinction, and to admit that their materialistic beliefs (because they are only beliefs) are personal and have no basis in physics at all.

I'm no fan of materialism - I'm pretty sure I haven't expressed any such opinions. My personal experience of physicists is that very few are outright materialists. I guess some of the people who've commented here will find that hard to believe... but that's just my experience.

Lori said...

I’ve been sitting back trying to follow this conversion and I generally have no idea what you guys are talking about. IN fact, at the risk of sounding sexist, I for the most part have no idea what ANY GUY is talking about most of the time. All I hear is bla,bla,bla…all fluff, feathers rustling, but no substance. I spent the whole weekend pondering this and observing my ‘guy’ to see if I could figure it out what is going on here, but I think I finally got it.

Guys are running on a binary system of “two logic”. Everything is either right or wrong, true or false, black or white and nothing in between, and THAT is the problem that has plagued the many fields of science for many hundreds of years. I hear things like “you are with us or you are against us” all the time. This is what is going on here with NS theory. You are either with him or against him (and it sound like you have already decided to be against him).

Unfortunately, we do not live in a binary universe. In Buddhism I learned of a concept called “four logic”, which has four elements as follows:

True: absolutely true
False: absolutely false
Not True: but that doesn’t mean it’s false
Not False: but that doesn’t mean it’s true

Not much of the universe falls into the absolute true or absolute false category. Most of the universe falls into the other two categories of not true and not false. In computer science they call it “fuzzy logic”. We live in a fuzzy logic universe of true and false and everything in between.

Women, on the other hand do run on “four logic”. We understand the concept of not true and not false. This is why we are the primary caregivers of the children because children run on “no logic” which seems to frustrate the hell out of our male counterparts but that we seem to be better equipped to handle.

Lori said...

What I see and experience (in this conversation and in the blogosphere in general) is not arrogance but ignorance, in the truest meaning of the word which is TO IGNORE. So when I hear things like “I don’t support NS” what I hear is that you are willing to IGNORE all of what he has to say because you don’t like something about him. Even though he might be 50 percent right you will say he is 100 percent wrong because you don’t understand the concept of partial truth.

It is my contention that everyone has a piece of the puzzle and that no one is totally right or totally wrong. For instance, Newton had one piece of the puzzle but he wasn’t totally right. Galileo, Einstein, Dirac, Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla and Hawking all had pieces of the puzzle but no one to this date has gotten it totally right. Nassim also has a piece of the puzzle and so do I.

Some day, some clever person is going to come along and put all the good pieces together and come up with the “closest to the truth” theory of the universe and I can pretty much guarantee you that it is NOT going to be a MAN.


Bob said...

That's a very nice idea, FractalWoman.

But presumably you'd admit that there are some physical situations, such as whether or not you will go down if I throw you out of a top-floor window, or whether or not every proton in your body weighs a billion tons, where there is a fairly clear answer.

If someone comes along claiming to have the answers that humanity has been searching for, and then it turns out that their theory is that you'll fall upwards if they throw you out of a window, then "deciding to disagree with them" doesn't really enter into it. It's not really a matter of opinion - unless you don't really understand what he's saying.

Granted, most things in life aren't 100% right or 100% wrong. But some things are - for example a statement that purports to reflect reality, but contradicts reality at every turn. Haramein makes such statements all the time.

To assert that your lovely feminine logic applies to 100% of things in the universe is actually a bit of a blanket black-and-white kind of a statement...

Michael_C said...

Hi Bob and FractalWoman,
Isn't it true that quantum mechanics describes a world a lot like the one described by the mystics in Hindu, Buddhist and other traditions? At least that is the contention of Fritjof Capra and others (who are professional physicists and/or professors of physics), and Pramahansa Yogananda (professional yogi in the 1950's whose story is amazing), and actually Neils Bohr, who had a yin-yang in his coat of arms?
That points to the notion that the true nature of reality can be known, but not from the perspective of the individualized self (in which people doing object science would fall), but rather only from the perspective of consciousness that realizes (not deduces) the unity in the universe that science points to. As the Buddhists are fond of pointing out, there is a method and evidence and so on for this which however is internal, not external. Maybe the science of the future is innerly, not outwardly empirical.
I love NH and find him fascinating and possibly saying something important. However, Bob is presenting evidence that NH's

Michael_C said...

physics is false. If I borrowed $100 from you and paid you back with four twenties, would you say, "OK, that's not true but that doesn't make it false"? You might forgive me the missing $20 but that doesn't make the math right. So, fair's fair.
I like the Not true/not false for what NH says about the pyramids (most possibly true), visiting aliens (maybe true), and geometry of vacuum (hm..., Bob?).
I find the "for us or agin us" very prevalent in discussion of evolution. There seems to be very little space for questioning Darwin without being grouped in with the fundamentalist Christians.
That is quite relevant here because there are alternate perspectives on origins, in which consciousness plays a key part. As far as I know, consciousness is not necessary to the current quantum mechanic model, or do I have that right Bob?

Lori said...

Actually, it's my contention that NH might be right if only he would allow for the scaling of the gravitational constant as Robert Oldershaw does in his discrete fractal paradigm. This would bring the mass and size of the proton back to what we observe without interfering with his scaling law. However, NH is just as stubborn as the rest of you "guys" and doesn't seem to want to consider it.

The fractal paradigm seems to be very prevalent in Buddhist teachings. They often talk a lot about the infinitely small and the infinitely large being the same or embedded into each other in "layers". They talk about boundless states leading to Nirvana. They also talk about universed inside of universes etc.

Lori said...

from the Avatamsaka Sutra
Far away in the heavenly abode of the God Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out infinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of Deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel in each "eye' of the net, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering like stars of the first magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that there is an infinite reflecting process occurring.... [T]his image ... symbolizes a cosmos in which there is an infinitely repeated interrelationship among all the members of the cosmos. This relationship is said to be one of simultaneous mutual identity and mutual causality.

This seems to indicate that the mechanism with which the fractal universe comes into being was known to Buddha. Using the Mandelbrot set as my model of the universe, I recognize that all the mini-brots within the whole M-Set construct are mathematically "entangled" by tiny thread not unlike Indra's Web. Each "jewel" in Indra's web represents one mini-bot in the Mandelbrot set. Each mini-brot is a copy or (reflection) of all the other ones. In my theory, mini-brots are "isomorphic" to black holes in our universe. Therefore, according to Buddhism and Mandelbrot theories, all black holes are interconnected by some tiny thread of entanglement, and, because we know that protons experience entanglement, then it's not only possible but probable that protons are black holes.

The Great Way is not difficult
for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent
everything becomes clear and undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction, however,
and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.

Human beings like to "differentiate". This is what science is all about. This is what calculus is for. However, according to Buddhism, this will never lead to the true nature of the entangled universe that we know and love.


Martin said...

Dear Bob,

thank you for taking the time to write your response to NH, and for the manner you have chosen to approach this heated discussion. Especially as by it I found how trapped one (or: I) can get in pacifying my fear of (the labour of) looking with allegories.

Best, Martin

Bob said...

Hi Michael and FractalWoman

I don't think quantum mechanics describes a world at all like the mystics of Hindu and Buddhism. People do love to jump to conclusions like that, and it certainly sells books. But there are far more reliable sources on this subject than self-publicists like Capra or Chopra.

You might be interested in this talk by Jnanavaca about the relationship between quantum physics and Buddhism. In particular section 10, if you don't have time to hear the whole thing.

Science and spirituality are different approaches to the search for the truth. If they start to arrive at similar conclusions, this is clearly a good thing. What is not helpful is people who start claiming that they already say the same thing, when they clearly do not. Jumping to the opposite extreme, other people try to argue that science doesn't yet fully agree with spiritual systems, and therefore science must be wrong. Surely we should just be patient, and let all of genuine, sincere means continue to seek out what they can on their own terms?

FractalWoman - Indra's net is a wonderful and insightful piece of imagery, but that doesn't mean you can take it and use it to argue with science, or to conclude things about black holes or Mandelbrot sets. Blurring the meaning of all these things to suit your fantasy world might be satisfying to you, but it has the side-effect of making you look ridiculous to anyone who knows what fractal and entanglement actually mean.

If you have so little respect for the qualities of deductive logic and discernment that are necessary to study mathematics and physics, why pretend to speak authoritatively about mathematical and physics concepts?

For someone who decries binary truth, you're certainly an argumentative little animal.

What I'd love to see is some real respect for the process of science, and some real respect for spiritual practices, which are both sincere and valid quests for understanding, at least in their ideal forms.

I've never been someone who's tried to use science to argue against spiritual systems. And I don't have a great deal of respect for people who try to use their spiritual 'knowledge' to argue against science.

Returning to Mr Haramein - he has made some purely scientific claims, which from a purely scientific perspective can be shown to be nonsense. That is what I've done in this post, and it is all I have done in this post. Taking the argument out of this scientific context must be very tempting for people who don't understand the science but hate to see Haramein criticised... but it really does miss the point somewhat.

The guy claims to have done some physics, and it's a godawful attempt with a ridiculous premise and blatantly incorrect conclusions. Any attempt to suggest that he's onto something is misleading. That's all I'm saying. If you want to argue, go ahead, but argue with that.

Lori said...

"For someone who decries binary truth, you're certainly an argumentative little animal."

Interesting! First of all, I am a computer scientist and I certainly don't decry binary truth, in fact, without it I wouldn't have a job. What I do recognize are the limitations of binary logic in the non-binary real world.

I do agree with the "argumentative little animal" analogy though. This is certainly a binary truth.

"If you have so little respect for the qualities of deductive logic..."

If you knew me you would know that my deductive reasoning skills are superior to most which is what makes me such a great computer programmer. I can see through the logic of the worst spaghetti code and get paid big bucks to do so (which is quite a feat considering I work in medical research and not industry). I am a "think outside the box" kind of thinker which more often than not gets me to the "solution" faster than reasonably expected. I am a good scientist whether you want to believe it or not. (BTW: how many scientific papers do you have your name on? Just curious?)

Also, I'm not using science to argue against spirituality or the other way around. I am trying to find the common ground because I believe there is truth in both approaches. As I was saying earlier, everyone has a part of the truth and it will take some clever "think outside the box" kind of person to sift through all the "spaghetti code" of science and spirituality to come up with a reasonable simple model of the universe that works.

Lori said...

"For someone who decries binary truth, you're certainly an argumentative little animal."

Although I made light of this comment earlier... on my bike ride into work I decided to not let this one go so easily. This comment was obviously meant to belittle me, to make me look "small", unimportant and subhuman. I can't understand why people like you feel the need to play it this way. Not only is it unprofessional, it is tasteless, unscientific and totally unnecessary. This is not the way I work and so I cannot let this pass without comment.


Bob said...

I'm less interested in how you rate your own skills than in the confused attempts at reasoning and the blurring and misuse of concepts that you've been writing in these comments.

If you actually do have a theory that incorporates the mathematical formalism of the M-set, the algebra of quantum entanglement of states in complex vector space, the differential geometry of black holes in general relativity, and you use these to deduce (using your superior deductive reasoning skills) things about the cosmos and/or protons, then fine. If not, then you're appropriating terms that surely only find true meaning in those contexts, reducing profound concepts to naive sketches, and taking the bits that fit best with your beliefs. It doesn't put you in a great position to call anyone unscientific and unprofessional.

It's certainly outside the box, though. And I do actually like it. Just take out all the terms that rely on a complex mathematical formalism, unless it's one that you've studied, understood and employed appropriately. It'll still look good and people might take you more seriously. I wish you luck with it. And sorry for calling you a little animal though. You're right, that kind of thing isn't necessary.

george said...

Bob said...

George, why use so many scientific words if you don't know what they mean? It's very silly.

2012hoax said...

Hi Bob;

1st, thanks for the detailed refutation. Lots of work for little reward, but I understand and appreciate it.

2nd, Haramein's name came up in our forums at, so now I get to build a page on him, and guess where I'll be linking people to read more on Haramein, and why he can safely be ignored? Yep. Here.

Thanks for making my life a little easier.

Bob said...

Hi 2012hoax - that's great, thanks!

Send me an email if you've any questions.

I take it you've seen this video where Haramein talks about 2012, the Mayan calendar, and the sun sending out a powerful pulse that could destroy the earth. It's complete irresponsible garbage.

He continues onto the next video, where he goes into the crazy apocalyptic side of it all.

He says (at 7:25 on this second one) "even if it's minor, it'd still be a major event for people on earth... if it blew enough plasma, it could actually expose its black hole nature, and we could get three days of darkness."

It's all very silly. But I guess it could be pretty disturbing for someone who actually believes whatever glop comes out of his mouth... and there are plenty of such people...

Anonymous said...

Actually Bob, your quote is a fabrication.

Why would you put words between quotes that are not actually spoken in the way you quoted them? Your well established authority as an anonymous science teacher gives you a lot of awesome powers for sure. But misquoting is not one of them. You are really trying a bit too hard to get your point across these days my friend.

Not many people will do so; but when one takes the time to get the context by actually watching the segment, it's doesn't even come close to what's in your post above.

Mr. Haramein is clearly heard when stating "BUT IF IT DID is not unthinkable we could get three days of darkness" while theorizing what could be the visible effect of some solar event in response to a woman's question.
Nowhere does he say that this is what actually is going to happen in 2012 and destroy the earth in the process.

He actually does a fair job explaining some not so well understood observed solar events (using actual footage from the NASA's SOHO mission), the quantum physics behind it and the aurealis borealis effect we see on earth.
It certainly was an enlightning and captivating bit to me when I first saw it a couple of years ago.

The fact that this was done before a captivated audience at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library way back in 2003 does make it a tad dated (and sad for you're overall point) but thanks for pointing me to it again.


Bob said...

I quoted him in an abbreviated but fair way, and linked clearly and directly to the original so that anyone can immediately get the full picture.

He's talking indefensible guff. If you love it so much, it's all yours - I'm not going to stop you.

Somehow you've come to believe that "he actually does a fair job explaining some not so well understood observed solar events (using actual footage from the NASA's SOHO mission), the quantum physics behind it and the aurealis borealis effect we see on earth", despite the fact that you don't understand the physics behind it, as you already made clear. It really does make you the perfect customer.

I guess you'll know when you're ready to start turning your critical faculties to what he says. I know it's not an easy proposition when you're captivated by something.

Anonymous said...

The only clear picture I'm getting from your anonymous posts is a picture of hate to a soundtrack of smugness Bob.

You are going out of your way to debunk this guy with article after long winding article. You are cross-posting all over the net, erecting Facebook pages and instructing other people online to email you, should they need any ready-to-quote dirt on this Satan of Science. It's all quite a sad thing to see really. Why would you go about discrediting someone in this way when there are far more elegant and powerful ways to bring your points across?

In the above reply alone you manage to make 3 or 4 assumptions about MY persona and education. I'm not even the subject of your critique. What's that all about?

Furthermore, it should be clear to any reader with a few Google skills that you are actively campaigning and lobbying against Mr. Haramein in a most disturbing way. It doesn't take your precious science to see that your motives are as crooked as your apologies.

I have very little respect for the words of an anonymous someone who attacks an otherwise perfectly curdious public figure on the basis of scientific disagreements and hides his insults, and contempt for others between the lines of his 'critiques' and then sugar coats them.

And that to me, Sir Bob-a-Thon, is the mark of true cowardice.

Peronally, I don't think that people care about how right you think you are when you come across as some crazed hooded clan member.

You might want to contemplate on that a bit first Bob.

(I do wish I had a voice like Morgan Freeman's right now).

Bob said...

My "assumptions about you" were the things that you told me very clearly in your comments here and here, Patrick. You've put your opinions across very clearly. I'm sure nobody would find them smug or hateful or crazed at all - they'd just hear the voice of Morgan Freeman and know you were right about everything.

Now let's just agree to disagree, ok?

AP said...

In the midst of your battle here you are forgetting some simple facts. 1) You keep making insults as well and then you ask in confusion why you have become the subject of critique. 2) Also- I can go ahead and again try to put this as clearly as possible to you.....that Bob is not instructing people to email him to down play is to explain the concept even further. And in case your starting to question my credibility or who I am, (thinking we are otherwise friends or the same) go look on Resonance project I have been there for along time, and my facebook page in connected!

I am here telling you about him first hand! Bob is NOT a phony nor is he a inadequate science teacher as you allude to or imply by your tone and jokes. He knows his material, and I have worked with him by way of email. He has helped me with my physics education and I have also advised and traded information with him on other various non-physics but science related issues, we have even discussed music theory. So there....can you give up your attempts to discredit him as a knowledgeable person. Moreover you seem to be very confused, lets talk about Nassim's material here shall we:

OKAY- First you didn't understand that segment of NH speech if your confused about all of this. He clearly pointed out several items: 1) NASA has covered up an image, 2) Points out that the image the Heliospheric observatory is showing is a object without a tail, which is going into and coming out of the Sun-hence the corresponding flashes he describes, several times, then plays the song. On the first two, after speaking through email(he runs blogs and debunks material) to David Morrison of NASA myself, I can point out to you that not only were there no altered images from SoHo, but the object without a tail is not even in the original shot. Meaning that it wasn't ever taken out, it just isn't in the Soho images at all. You can even go back through the archives and see for yourself. By the way, Nassim has no idea what the Sun is doing here,a simple investigation leads me to that conclusion. And the people in the crowd don't even know what the occulter disc is?!?! He has to explain that to them several times. And you keep on using them as validation for NH being accurate and making good points?

Now, 3rd what you said: "He actually does a fair job explaining some not so well understood observed solar events (using actual footage from the NASA's SOHO mission), the quantum physics behind it and the aurealis borealis"

-Actually he does not point out anything about Quantum physics Patrick, because if you'll use simple comprehension skills and apply them, then you will recall NH does not believe in QFT or anytype of Quantum Mechanics. So...........?!?! Where do you get that he "explains the Quantum physics behind it" ??

The Soho has a EIT imaging telescope which operates with a extreme ultraviolet filtering and provides optimal cadence. The pulses that Nassim is showing are nothing special at all really. We monitor them, well NOAA does and lets state-wide EOC's and emergency management departments know if there is cause from alarm.
But that never happens.

Nassim is just pausing the images from the Large Angle Spectrometric Coronagraph(LASCO)and then un-pausing it when the Coronal Mass Ejections peak. In fact I can do the same thing with my real time player or the Windows Media player, I do it all the time :-) I download the "The Sun Now" image files on Soho website, and play them back, watching the CME's burst through! These are just images of the Solar Corona and they have very little to do with Quantum Physics Patrick....almost nothing AND Nassim says nothing about QM either by the way! He just puts it down!

AP said...

Now, 3rd what you said: "He actually does a fair job explaining some not so well understood observed solar events (using actual footage from the NASA's SOHO mission), the quantum physics behind it and the aurealis borealis"

-Actually he does not point out anything about Quantum physics Patrick, because if you'll use simple comprehension skills and apply them, then you will recall NH does not believe in QFT or anytype of Quantum Mechanics. So...........?!?! Where do you get that he "explains the Quantum physics behind it" ??

The Soho has a EIT imaging telescope which operates with a extreme ultraviolet filtering and provides optimal cadence. The pulses that Nassim is showing are nothing special at all really. We monitor them, well NOAA does and lets state-wide EOC's and emergency management departments know if there is cause from alarm.
But that never happens.

Nassim is just pausing the images from the Large Angle Spectrometric Coronagraph(LASCO)and then un-pausing it when the Coronal Mass Ejections peak. In fact I can do the same thing with my real time player or the Windows Media player, I do it all the time :-) I download the "The Sun Now" image files on Soho website, and play them back, watching the CME's burst through! These are just images of the Solar Corona and they have very little to do with Quantum Physics Patrick....almost nothing AND Nassim says nothing about QM either by the way! He just puts it down

The only thing which may have the slightest bit of accuracy to it, if his idea that the Sun spot structure and behavior is that of a more vortex like shape, but that has been known way before he said it! That new clips he plays where can you find it again? NObody has been able to find it anywhere....anywhere EVER!

Here you want some pics of the Sun pretty aren't they?

Bob said...

Golly... thanks AP :-)

Anonymous said...

Dear AP,

I hear what you are trying to say but it doesn't adress any of the issues I have commented about at length.

If you are trying to convince me of anything other than how close you and Sir Bob-a-Thon are, how much you have learned from him, and how much you now dispise Nassim Haramein trains of thought, I believe you.

In light of what I said above and here, there's really not a lot for me to respond to.

You sound bitter. But I can't scientifically proof that you are, so let's disagree on the point of scienctism. I'm sure it would make Bob happy.


AP said...

Ok-First, sorry for the double posts, I meant to copy and paste only one part of my addition which was the paragraph where I point out NH shows us vortex like functions of sunspots. But the important thing to take from that is that OTHERS have already done it.

Secondly-Patrick,I see you have added me to your insult list. Cool! And btw-I will respond to your points, but let me be very clear in that this discussion is about NH's claims and credibility, you have opened it up into other areas, so I will address those now. And excuse me? I am "bitter" wow. You really have a problem guy, if your going to call me bitter for trying to show you how your arguments both in defending NH and in ridiculing Bob's behavior (and now mine as well) are flawed in many ways. But did I call you any names? Not really. But now I am "bitter" your describing my behavior now. I see!

Again, I am involved because I enjoy Physics. I have experience in geology, I work with scientist in those related fields, and I am eventually going to write my Ph.D in geophysics. So I needed to brush up on my physics, and Bob has helped greatly. I am not here to help you "proof" anything about me. I am here to point out what my conclusions, and the conclusions of other scientist and individuals with a brain have known about Nassim Haramein. That is all.

What is there to sound bitter about? I was honest with you and you used some of that information to make a insult by guessing that since I am no longer a NH fan that maybe, possibly,I could be "bitter" towards him or this process somehow. Wrong assumption. Would you like me to make an assumption now?

Okay here goes- Patrick, you sound like you are supporting a fraud who has all of his information WRONG, but still continues to accept large amount of money for his work. Humm.-so since you are more or less in support of NH and his awesome tactfulness in dealing with Bob. And since I already heard your weak analysis of NH's Sun CME video then can we say:

-You sound like a uneducated pseudoscience lover who plays with videos online and misunderstand them then reports back here to be a Daddy and punish Bob for his bad behavior and "meanyness"

Fair enough? I can't PROVE that about you....oh but wait...I can. By everything you wrote in the other post to me which I am about to respond to momentarily.

Luis said...

It is sad to see how all you critics bash Nassim Haramein's name. The guy has tremendous passion for his work and I can assure you he is not a fake trying to conn money from people. While he may not hold a PHD in physics and while he may not have the math skills, his hypothesis is very intuitive and comprehensive.

We all know that the standard model is not complete and that it needs some more fine tuning or maybe a whole new paradigm shift. I encourage anyone who challenges it. Because if we don't challenge things we stop growing and evolving.

Just go back in history and see this same scenario happen again and again. People with new ambitious ideas and concepts always get strong resistance from the common norm.

Instead of bashing these people we should respect and support their efforts. It is people like Nassim that challenge modern ways of thinking and that eventually help us evolve and progress the society we live in.

If he is right or wrong who cares. His ideas do get you to re-think the way in which we have learn our history to be. Just the mere fact that he has opened my mind to all these new possibilities of our true history makes me happy. There are many others aside from Nassim that are challenging modern norm and views on science and history. Nothing is ever set in stone. We have so much to discover and learn from ourselves and our universe.

Why don't we take a more positive approach and just keep an open mind.
Let's keep everyone thinking. Remember that every technological advancement and every technological luxury we take for granted in our 21st century society was once a thought in one man's mind. You discourage people from thinking out of the box and you slow down the progress of us evolving and growing as human beings.

Bob said...

I'm not arguing with his passion, Luis. All I'm doing is explaining why he's wrong about virtually everything he says. It's very basic physics, and it's not a matter of opinion. I don't care about the norms - if a theory conflicts with very basic observations of nature, then it's wrong. Do you think I shouldn't say anything?

I respect anyone who makes a genuine effort to investigate the nature of the universe, and I've spent my life encouraging people to do just that.

What I don't respect is someone who sells himself (to audiences of non-scientists, of course) as a scientist with revolutionary new answers, when it's clear that he's fabricating it all.

He neither knows nor cares what has already been explored, and he insists on ignoring all the ways in which his ideas disagree blatantly with what's out there. That's not investigation, it's charlatanry. Don't tell me I have to respect that.

Saying "if it's right or wrong who cares" isn't open-minded, and it certainly doesn't keep everyone thinking. It just breeds a whole load of unquestioning fans who value entertainment and woo over truth.

There's nothing closed-minded in listening to something and realising that there's a thousand very good reasons why it's a pile of crap. The ability to recognise a bullshitter when you see one is sorely underestimated in some circles these days!

He tells pretty star-spangled stories at bedtime, and people like it. That's all. He's not advancing civilisation. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

How is it clear that he is fabricating all of his work? That statement is the most ignorant thing I've heard, in context with the discussion. Since nobody really knows exactly how nature and the universe fundamentally works, are you going to say that all theoretical scientists are fabricating their work? He is not ignoring other work that is out there, extends other ideas or disagrees with them and has is own.

Anyone who attempts to write multiple scientific papers and dedicates his time to scientific idea can be considered to be making a genuine attempt to investigate the nature of the universe. I can't understand the point of this conversation when you contradict yourself over and over and over. It's exhausting. I know your going to say that I don't have to read any of this. I actually wrote on this blog months ago, and havent been back since today, and your still trying to defend yourself. Your either massively stubborn, blindly ignorant, or are insatiably starved of attention. Either way it's sad to see someone waste so much energy of unresolvable debate.

Luis said...

I agree MR. Anonymous. Nassim's attempt is genuine. I've watched all his videos numerous times and I event went to one of his emissiary programs. He runs a non-profit organization and he needs to raise money in order to continue researching.

Like I said in the end I don't care if he is right or wrong. Many great minds have been wrong but somehow contributed to the advancement of the overall field of physics. What better person than Nassim to analyze these issues with a fresh mind, with a mind that had not been tainted by the common norms of society.

He may not be the best mathematician but he has found a way to organize effort with some credible physicist and mathematicians. His unique ability to integrate concepts in my opinion is one of a kind. His thought process is extremely intutitve and genuine. That's why I personally follow his work. He is a Neo Thinker.

There is a lot of bad people out there trying to conn people from their hard earnings. Nassim is simply finding ways to further his research and organized effort. There is a reason why he has been succesful in developing a following.

Not only is he a great integrator of concepts, he has alluring charisma and passion that attracts like minded positive people. His presentations are very long but he has found ways to keep the crowd interested by adding a little bit of laughter to his presentations. He does make fun of string theory and quantum physics but he does not do it with malice intentions. He does put up a show to make his presentations flow smoother. In my opinion that is smart because it made me sit there for 8 hours straight and I was not bored.

Why waste so much energy and time trying to bad mouth a genuine person. Instead be man enough to show your face and not hide under your name Bob-a-thon...Who are you anyways?? You know what they say, misery loves company...What have you done for society?

Bob said...

Anonymous, here are two distinct concepts, which are not contradictory.

1. it's perfectly clear
2. you don't understand it

The reasons why Haramein's science is garbage are scientific reasons.

When you meet two people talking to each other in Greek, do you point and laugh and say 'none of that makes any sense, you sad idiots'? I don't suppose you do.

I've tried my best to make this post as understandable as possible to non-scientists. I've made a number of very clear points. I've also given plenty of less technical examples of Haramein being blatantly misleading and ignorant of basic science over here.

Have any of them been disputed by anyone with an understanding of physics? Of course not, because there's nothing wrong with them.

Instead, by way of 'criticism', I get the usual clichés of self-appointed psychoanalysts and people who don't understand physics trying to tell me what I can and can't know. Why not go to a Polish blog and tell them it's all gobbledygook that nobody can understand instead?

Luis: so a 'Neo Thinker' is someone who will entertain you with pretty stories, and you don't care whether they're right or wrong. That's very nice for you. Sweet dreams.

Anonymous said...

Nassim has recently announced paid membership to his website...Care to join Bob?

Bob said...

Why of course, I'll sign up right away! It sounds perfect!

At last, he'll have the perfect safe place to carry out his 'vital research for the benefit of humanity', entirely free from facts or informed opinion, free from the requirements of evidence, free from any doubting or questioning whatsoever, free from the lessons of history, and completely free from the perils of rational thought or intelligence.

He'll be able to feed undisturbed on the brains of the gullible for the rest of his days, and they'll use their talons to protect him from dissent.

Ah, if only more scientists could be like him...

jcherpaw said...

Logic and RATIONAL THOUGHT iform me that you are ignoring the simple recnet phycology of the mind, Bob...You exterpative reaction to criticism reveals (it seems to me) utter lack of any kind of sound thinking on the recent neurological facts regarding right brained function/kleft brain function: on the one hand we have the people like Nassim...On the other: People who claim to be scientifivc in their thinking, defending theier ratio-scientific (LEFT BRAINED THINKING)---entirely cut-off from ytheir intuitive right brain Felling/intuitive faculty...In swhort your top heavey, I do strongly suggest..

But i offfer a remedy ; not simply critisisms...
RFirst, i suggest you ivestigayte CURRENT theories regareding brain mind body function before accusing ohters of your self projective defense (*blind spot in your own self)Against people even remotely like nassim,...I suggest on working more on the attributes of other beings which may be salvagable to your critques(one sided)...Simply put, your strong negative attitude to "loose" logic is merely a syptom which you dominate with your left brained ratio scientific world view. Clearly tou see psychoanalysis as apseudo science as well?

If you really are a rational scientific thinker you might consider your own shortcomming as well, befor eaccussing other of not fullfilling their duty to do same.

Nmaste May all beings finds their way to enlightenment


Bob said...

If you know anything of the recent psychology of the mind, jcherpaw, then you'll know that in any school of psychoanalysis, if an analyst starts trying to analyse someone without their permission, especially someone they've never met and only know from writings on a blog, their behaviour will be seen as (a) unethical, (b) arrogant and (c) inevitably miles off the mark.

In other words: don't do it, it'll always make you look a dick.

You're asserting that I cut off from feeling and intuition, just because you've seen me use logic on some of the posts on this blog? Don't you think that's ridiculous? And why are you telling me what I clearly see, and what my attitude is? It's all very wrong, my friend. In all senses of the word.

These posts are about the supposed science content of Haramein's theories. Science is the study of the objective content of the natural world (or, if you want to be picky, the content that appears to behaves extremely reliably as if it is objective). Haramein is pretending to give scientific presentations. That's why rational discussion is relevant here.

I haven't mentioned anything to do with psychology or neurology here. And I haven't extirpated anybody - I've taken great care to address, honestly and openly, virtually everything everyone has said, including your comments, as you know.

I have nothing against 'loose logic', spirituality and intuition - these are essential parts of a healthy life. But when someone's loose and intuitive 'theory' contradicts things that can be observed about nature, it's appropriate and respectful to disagree, and to explain why.

When someone pretends to be something that he's not, and persists in misleading people, it's also appropriate to point that out.

As I've kept saying, if you or anyone else can find any flaws in any one of the many many expositions that I've detailed of the massive discrepancies and misleading garbage in Haramein's presentations, then let me know what they are. I'll be very happy to admit those shortcomings.

Nobody's done it yet. The only straight criticisms I get are from people doing what you just did – stooping to the cliché of preaching to me what's going on inside the head of their fantasy version of me.

Must be ever so tempting.

Revlin said...

"In an actual proton: we see point-like constituents (quarks)"

Do you have a citation for this?

Has some person, somewhere actually SEEN a quark or a proton/electron/neutron/positron/muon/gluon/etc or was that that just a figure of speech?


Bob said...

What do you mean by "actually SEEN"?

Does looking through a microscope count? How about an electron microscope (which scatters electrons off an object and uses computation to reconstruct an image)? If that counts as "seen" to you, then yes, most definitely.

You could check out deep inelastic scattering experiments, or the article on partons on Wiki.

AP said...

@jcherpaw Anonymous, Luis

I can see that complex points or ideas coming from someone other then yourselves don't seem to phase you guys or hold any meaning to you whatsoever, so let me change my tone and make things simple.

1) Yes scientist challenge the Standard Model ALL THE TIME! Except when they do it, they will follow methods and processes which are followed by all academics and professionals, the result of which is all the technology, innovation and knowledge you posses today PERIOD!

2) There is absolutly no way you can say that the NH has proven anything or raised any points others who are LEGITIMATE scientist didn't already know about!

2) Since Nassim denies just about all previous QCD, QED, Relativistic physics results, that means he has to do NEW experiments to replace the 200+ years of work.

And I am sorry NOBODY, not even the uber geniuses like Feynman, Sagan, Susskind, Einstein whoever, can do that in 20 years...sorry. You can't replace 5 life times of people work, while being a ski instructor, a mountain climber, a family man, and a author of countless useless videos which are filled with nothing!

In Short: NH takes other peoples work, then uses the hippie community, the people who like or are into eastern philosophies and the conspiracy theory wing nuts and rolls them all into one, and that is his audience base!

AP said...

By the way, the Standard Model and physics today has been challenged many times, but it holds up! Like Bob has articulately described in so many words!!

I don't know where this idea that anything that is said to be valid by the majority of intelligent scientist must be challenged just for the sake of challenging it....thats NOT how we do things in this world and thats NOT how your world functions...

If it were that way, it would be Nihilistic Anarchy!

Revlin said...

"Does looking through a microscope count? How about an electron microscope (which scatters electrons off an object and uses computation to reconstruct an image)? If that counts as "seen" to you, then yes, most definitely."

I'd like to call attention to the use of "computation to reconstruct an image". In such an example NO image is in fact "reconstructed" because there was no image to begin with. The image is an invention, a graphic depiction, as in GRAPH, not a photographic impression of a real image, hence the "false color" disclaimer which accompanies every electron microGRAPH you ever see.

That counts as "seen" about as much as you seeing Barack Obama on CNN counts as "seen" (or less actually). No, I mean EM waves in the visible spectrum, reflected or emitted from the phenomena at hand, hitting your retina. The question was intended to provoke deeper analysis into your use of the word "see". None of the above examples, including the wiki on partons, count as seeing a thing directly. A light microscope would count, but that's not used in particle physics, at least not to reveal any actual particles.

I'm not saying that particle physics is wrong, or askew, or inaccurate. I'm saying that the basic way in which we use language belies our assumptions and our naiveté around that fact is what make these things so hard to talk about and so hard to understand. Frankly I don't care that the world is made of quarks and quantum foam, or micro black holes and billiard ball nuclei. None of those metaphors are accessible to anyone who does not know the esoteric mathematics that lends sanity to the discussion. You criticize one person for talking out of his ass because he can't demonstrate the math when EVERY ONE OF US is wanting to know what is going on here: who am I, what is this place, what is my life for, why does the Sun come up every day? These questions are not riddles to be solved by the proclamations of physics, astronomy, religion, cults, historians, politicians or ANY OTHER SOCIAL INSTITUION.

If you don't understand the answer then what good is it to you?

NH and others like him are, for sure, doing what you detest and what you accuse them of doing: they are undermining scientific values.

Science is the best we've done so far at a cultural institution that can produce meaning and understanding from the analysis of the incomprehensible experience with which we are confronted in the course of our lives here on earth. And maybe it's the best we can do, AS A SOCIETY.

But as an individual, as a REAL person, with real feelings, hopes, fears, dreams and other unspeakables, you are your own master, your own maker of worlds, ideas and ultimately truth. Don't ever accept that someone other than yourself knows what your life, YOUR REALITY, is about.

Bob said...


Well thanks for your efforts in 'provoking deeper analysis into your use of the word "see'. I gave you a straightforward answer that clarified precisely what I meant.

Obviously visible light won't reveal quarks, as its wavelength is a billion times larger than the regions they occupy.

You said "NH and others like him are, for sure, doing what you detest and what you accuse them of doing: they are undermining scientific values", I disagree entirely.

Firstly, I've never accused him of any such thing.

Secondly, nobody will ever undermine scientific values by talking a boatload of crap. There's never any danger of scientists being taken in by the likes of Haramein.

Thirdly, Haramein repeatedly and persistently declares himself to be a serious scientist doing serious scientific research.

He's a joke. Basically.

Regarding "wanting to know what is going on here" as an individual, I agree – you're free to believe whatever you like, and make sense of the world in whatever way you choose.

But if someone like Haramein stands up in public and claims to be speaking the truth about science and then spews a pile of internet-friendly rhetoric and pseudo-spiritual bullshit disguised as science, then people are likely to want to point that out, and they are perfectly free to do so. It would be an awful shame if nobody did.

I didn't criticise him for not demonstrating the math. I criticised him because everything he says about science is bullshit. Every time he talks.

I've done my best to explain why I think this. I want others to be able to weigh up my reasoning for themselves. If you don't get it, and you want to stick to Haramein despite the evidence that he's a fraud, you're completely free to do so.

Suzanne said...

I'm in love with you. What can I say?

I don't know enough science -- despite being the winner in high school of the Bausch & Lomb science award for having the highest grades, but it pissed off the other prospects cause you only had to take three out of four science course and I didn't take physics -- to be able to understand the details, but I get you. Wow. You are so clear and so respectful as you dodge a million bullets.

I was hunting for how to spell Nassim's name as to suggest to a radio host that he book us together, when my Google led me to you. This is a show that wants me back, and I was thinking if they'd book me with Nassim I'd get to meet him.

This is email to my list about the show I did: Look at this lovely 3-minute hurrah for my movie -- and you can go on to listen to this smart guy and I talk on his radio show:

People in my corner of reality are ga ga over Nassim -- especially Daniel Pinchbeck, who's in my movie and is no fool-- but I never get attracted when I poke into him, including listening to hours of his theories that an emissary delivers. But, because he does a big number on my topic, I have this little nag that I should know him. I'm nagging less now.

PLEASE don't take me on as the next thing to debunk. I'm a Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude graduate of NYU, and the only thing that makes more sense than human beings making all the crop circles is that they don't. Occam's Razor is plenty sharp, and without looking at evidence it would toss me into a cocked hat, but there's that evidence thing. Even science, our god, gives credence to something beyond the beyond going on.

Are you married?

Suzanne Taylor
"What On Earth? Inside the Crop Circle Mystery"

Bob said...

Yippidoo. Thanks Suzanne, glad you liked it.

Don't worry, I'd never try to 'debunk' anything that I wasn't very familiar with in detail. I don't know the first thing about crop circles.

I do have my theory, though, which is that they're made by badgers. Badgers with spirographs. I'm writing a book on it now.

Never underestimate a badger.

So, any more eyelash-fluttering woo salesmen want to advertise on my blog?

I've now got high google rankings for all kinds of new age garbage search terms, don't you know. If I had any business sense, I'd encourage all the woo capitalists to take advantage of the more gullible of my readers by advertising their opportunistic nonsense here for a fee. That'd be great.

Badgers, anyway. I've set up cameras so I can get some footage so I can prove my theory to the world. Watch this space...

Lori said...

Bob and company,

You guys are missing the whole point of Nassim's (and my) work. It is understandable considering the prejudicial attitude the pure scientific community has historically taken to anyone trying to express any ideas that to not adhere to the dogma of the times. In the olden days, as in Plato and Aristotle, philosophy and science were in the same "department". There was no such thing as pure science and the scientific method did not handicap one’s own thought processes. What Nassim and others are trying to do is to put the "spirit" back into the science, by taking a holistic approach to information gathering and sharing. Spirituality, consciousness, historical perspectives, must all be taken into consideration in order to truly understand our universe.
Yes, pure science has given us all the technical advances that we have today like this computer I am typing on without which I would probably be an underpaid potter living some hippy community, Canada rather than a successful (and well paid) computer scientist working in the medical field. I appreciate what we have and would literally be lost without it. However, after all the research and studying that I have done, I’ve come to realize that we are no closer to answering the questions that have plagued mankind for thousands of years: “What is the universe?, Why is it here? What is it made of? What are the underlying principles that create and sustain it. I’m still not satisfied with the answers that I am getting from the scientific community. It’s not enough; it doesn’t feel right; and I have a right to search for answers that make sense to me. My discovery process (and Nassim’s discovery process) are perfectly valid and useful.

Lori said...

Modern science is about isolating system in order to make measurements, fit parameters to their equations and then attempt to make predictions. However, through the process of isolation, we are missing most of the picture every time. For example, when we isolate black holes from the rest of the universe what we end up with (mathematically) is a black hole with a very small and uninteresting event horizon. As well, when we isolate the expanding universe from the contracting part (black holes/gravity) then you get a universe that is expanding out of control. However, when you take a holistic approach (whole istic) taking into consideration all the phenomenon (expansion and contraction) then what you end up with is a black hole with an event horizon that extends beyond the mathematical event horizon of the isolated black hole and you get a universe that is expanding but not out of control. The expansion parts and contraction parts are in perfect equilibrium and at the interface between the two is where all the cool stuff goes on.
So a galaxy, the whole galaxy then becomes the event horizon of the black hole but it is also the event horizon of the expanding part of the universe which I refer to as a white hole. In this context, horizon is not a good word for this phenomenon. The word interface is probably more appropriate. Galaxies and life, form and exist at the INTERFACE between the expanding universe and the contracting universe. Although I am generalizing here, there’s a lot more to it than that, the main point is that modern science isolates systems but nature does no such thing. There is no such thing as an isolated system in nature. All systems are open and interacting. Not even an atom can be isolated from this system.

Lori said...

In my fractal cosmology, “The Mandelbrot set is a black hole”, I am able to model galaxies far more accurately than any super computer simulation of galaxy formation that I have ever seen. Show me a simulation that generates the shapes and details of galaxies better than this:

Lori said...

It's my opinion, that Nassim is not wrong and I am not wrong. We may not be exactly right but neither is the standard model, so there's lots of room for everyone to have a good time.

Bob said...

Oh, hello again Lori.

More of those clichés about science being a dogma. As if everyone's take on physical reality should be treated equally, regardless of their degree of understanding and rigour, and if we dare to make distinctions then we're prejudiced.

"Modern science is about isolating system in order to make measurements, fit parameters to their equations and then attempt to make predictions."

What absolute bollocks.

(I'd try to elaborate, but I've tried talking with you before and I know what it's like.)

I'm a little tired of being told what science is by self-righteous people with random opinions and a complete inability to admitting that they haven't the first clue what they're talking about.

I've never tried to stop anyone doing anything. Can't you have your good time without needing me to subscribe to your cosmic silliness? I'm sure you can.

Lori said...

I'm not wanted here. I get it. I like those other guys better anyways. At least they know what it means to have a conversation without being rude.

See ya! Dont wanna be ya! (see, i can be rude too!)

FYI, crop circles are made by complex magnetic fields generated by the rotating magnetic field of the earth. As earths magnetic field expands and contracts, magnetic vorticies break off and begin to travel. This generates a complex electric field which energizes the crops forming patterns. This was for Suzanne.

Bob said...

Lori, you're a marvel.

I wonder if there's a word for people with a pathological inability to recognise that they haven't the first clue what they're talking about, but can't stop spouting theories with fancy words in them.

I will try to be nice to them in future.

Lori said...

Ok, I’m not one to give up so easily. I was feeling a bit “pissy” yesterday but my head is clear again.
So what I need to know, Bob, is what gives YOU the authority to judge whether “I know what I’m talking about” or not. Really! What papers have you authored or even co-authored to give any credibility to your blatantly aggressive and insulting proclamations about me. Please enlighten me. I think your audience here would also like to know. What unique contribution have you made to the scientific community? Any innovations, inventions or patents filed? I’m assuming you have a university degree?
Why should anyone listen to or even care what you think?

Bob said...

Nobody should listen to or care what I think unless they find it useful or convincing. If you don't, that's fine.

You've surely noticed that post that you're commenting on is (at least trying to be) dedicated to the application of reason and scientific principles to demonstrate that what appears to be a popular scientific theory can be no more than sparkly nonsense and fakery.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that this might actually not be the best place to receive a sympathetic hearing for your cosmological nonsense.

Regarding knowing what you're talking about... well, if someone who's never visited or communicated with anyone from Bulgaria started promoting their own Bulgarian poetry, how would the Bulgarians know they were fake?

Let's just say that somehow they can magically tell if someone keeps using technical terms they don't know the meaning of. Perhaps it's a magic gift from the fractal magnetic energy field fairies.

Suzanne said...

Oh Bob, I fall deeper in love with you all the time. But you haven't told me if you are married...???

Your admiring, eyelash-fluttering woo salesperson (watch that politically correct thing)...Suzanne

Lori said...

Well, you didn't answer a single question about your credibility (to be judge and jury about my ideas) which I guess indirectly does answer my questions.

""Regarding knowing what you're talking about... well, if someone who's never visited or communicated with anyone from Bulgaria started promoting their own Bulgarian poetry, how would the Bulgarians know they were fake?""

This makes no sense at all. I am a scientist working in the field of science. I am not an Italian trying to talk to a Bulgarian. I have contact with scientists on a daily basis and THERE IS NO LANGUAGE BARRIER. I have even presented my theory to some of them, including my boss who is a physicist and the medical biophysics students that I work with on a daily basis, and they are intrigued by and supportive of my ideas. In fact I get a lot of positive feedback from real scientists doing real science here at the university where I work.

I hardly ever talk "Bulgarians" or new agers or anyone not in scientific realm about my theory exactly because of the language barrier. Just because you don't like what I am saying doesn't mean that I am wrong. There are plenty of real researchers that I can have real conversations with without the patronizing tone that you seem to enjoy.

Again, what are your credentials? Who are you to say that my cosmology is nonsense? Please, enlighten me!

Lori said...

The university that I work for has invited me to present my "Kooky Kosmology" to a group called "Canadian Association for Girls in Science". I doubt very much that they would have invited me to help mold these young minds if what I was saying was total nonsense. I'm going to encourage them to think for themselves, in other works to not "adhere to dog-ma" and I'm going to tell them that "curiosity did NOT kill the cat" although Schrodinger may have but we can never know ;-) Wish me luck.

(did you get my cat and dog analogy? I kill me!)

Bob said...

Good luck Lori.

Lori said...

Thanks Bob. I appreciate it. I'm a little nervous actually. I'm more of a closet cosmologist rather than a public one nesessarily.

Anonymous said...

LOL @ lori & Bob

This stuff is way better then your actual critique Bob. :)

Daniel Foote said...

This discussion really is quite amazing. I think all of the regular posters deserve a round of applause.

I thank you Bob, for shedding some light on NH's theory and helping my scientific mind to switch back on.

This is not to say that you have convinced me that he is completely full of it, but maybe i'll be a bit more cautious.

The struggle though that i was facing this year was that science has not proven energy healing/channeling, yet my personal experiences with it give me the level of proof i require for me to believe. If ever i find myself doubting again, within 20 seconds i can again offer myself that required proof.

I find that the model of the universe i have in my head from my biochem/molecular biology bachelor and 5 years worth of personal research in many scientific and also esoteric fields, fits very well with my spiritual beliefs.

I would really like to get into the research field regarding alternative medicine and molecular biological science in general. I would love to test energy channeling on bacterial colonies and such, as i think experimenting on humans does not offer data that is very statistically viable, at least when we are asking for self report or giving surveys and question airs.

Anyway, I appreciate your effort to respond instead of react to people, and also everyones willingness to put forward a decent discussion rather than an excessive amount of abuse etc (there always has to be a bit though, right?)

Take care, Dan

Bob said...

Sounds god, Dan!

I'm all for people studying and investigating and communicating whatever interests them.

So long as you're honest about which things are your beliefs and personal thoughts and experiences, and which things are established facts, you won't come into conflict with any scientist worthy of respect.

The problem with Haramein is that he is dishonest (or delusional, or both). He persistently claims his ideas as 'facts', describes random thoughts as 'research', gives irrelevant equations as 'proofs', dismisses all established science that he doesn't understand as 'bunk' or 'closed-minded', doesn't allow any comparison of his physics with what physical reality is observed to be like, and misleads people into seeing him as a scientist.

It's designed to make people feel 'opened up' by his performances, but ensure they don't question any of what he tells them.

I feel there are far, far too many people passing off their interpretations of personal experiences as if they're universal truths that everyone should agree with, or passing off their random opinions as if they're facts. The world could really do with less of this. (That's my opinion!)

If you're honest in your research, if you're honest with regard to what you don't know as well as communicating what you do, then it's always a great thing to do.

Lori said...


I agree with you on all your points (surprise surprise). I am a little offended as well when Nassim refers to himself a physicist when I know for sure that he doesn't have a university degree in anything. I worked hard and spent a lot of money getting my university degree in Computer Science and so I think I paid my dues. Because of that, I do feel that I have the right to call myself a scientist (otherwise they wouldn't call it computer SCIENCE). As well, I do recognize that it would be totally inappropriate for me to refer to myself a physicist since officially that was not part of my university degree although I did take some astronomy courses as options. As well, I worked in the Physics and Astronomy department after graduating for almost 10 year so I have a lot more hands on experience this the field than Haramein can make claim to. So I hope you will accept that I'm not randomly putting words together in hopes that I can fool someone into thinking that I know what I am talking about. I am quite serious about my cosmology and I approach it very carefully and with a lot of research and thought.

Lori said...

As far as Haramein's "theory" goes, there are a couple of things that I really like about it, regardless of his background, which fit in nicely with my fractal cosmology ideas. One, is the idea of scalable black holes (scalable in a fractal manner), and two, his 64-tetrahedron grid which is a scalable fractal geometry producing vector equilibrium at all scales. I find all fractal patterns fascinating and this one is particularly interesting to me.

As far as believe systems go, I have none. I personally don't believe in anything in particular, not even my own ideas. (or Santa or Satan for that matter. Did you ever notice how SANTA is an anagram for SATAN??? Santa took the Christ out of Christmas which technically makes Santa the anti-christ ;-) Oops, did I say that out loud?

The only thing I believe in are possibilities, so when I say "I believe or think" something is true, what I really means is that "I believe or think that there is a possibility" that something is true, only it's too much trouble to say that every time.

Oh ya, that thing I said about crop circles, I made that up off the top of my head just for fun (and for Suzanne) I thought she would like it.

I actually think (that there is a possibility that) crop circles are created by powerful lasers (microwave?) mounted on satellites orbiting the earth, drawing vector graphics in the fields as a way to test their devices. I think if we check the locations of the crop circles, we may be able to determine the path of the "secret military" satellite used to make these beautiful paintings. All for now.

Anonymous said...


Science has nothing to say about how one can decide to close one's hand into a fist, and yet it happens. This is utterly outside the realm of scientific explanation because what we see in that phenomenon is mind as a first cause. It is a example of 'telekinesis': matter is caused by mind to move. So we need not fear the sneers of science in the matter of the fate or origin of the soul.

As nervous systems evolve to higher and higher levels, they come more and more to understand the true situation in which they are embedded, and the true situation in which we are embedded is an organism, an organization of intelligence on a galactic scale.

Science and mathematics may be culture-bound. We cannot know for sure, because we have never dealt with an alien mathematics or an alien culture except in the realm of the fringe, and that evidence is inadmissible by the guardians of scientific truth.

Other intelligent monkeys have walked this planet. We exterminated them and so now we are unique, but what is loose on this planet is language, self-replicating information systems that reflect functions of DNA: learning, coding, templating, recording, testing, retesting, recodong against DNA functions. The again, language may be a quality of an entirely different order. Whatever language is, it is in us monkeys now and moving through us and moving out of our hands and into the noosphere with which we have surrounded ourselves.

Bob said...


"So I hope you will accept that I'm not randomly putting words together in hopes that I can fool someone into thinking that I know what I am talking about."

Nope. Sorry. But I'm sure you're very serious. As is Haramein.

The thing is that you both misuse technical terms very badly and present pretty stories as if they're some kind of viable alternative to actual cosmology. Something's way out of balance.

I guess it's very easy to underestimate (or just plain ignore or dismiss) what science is presenting

Perhaps if you were to take a few years to study what cosmologists actually do, and the degree of sophistication and logic and beauty that are involved in the subject, and the precise interweaving with detailed actual observations of the actual universe, then you might see what I mean.

I won't hold my breath. :)


Hello. Yes, conscious action is currently beyond the scope of science, and that may be due to fundamental limitations in what science is and can be. It's a fascinating subject.

Fascinating, that is, until people start asserting their own personal beliefs as if they're facts. Then it becomes silly.

"the true situation in which we are embedded is an organism, an organization of intelligence on a galactic scale."

Hey, maybe it is. Who knows. Do you? Honestly?

Lori said...

I have been studying cosmology for more than 30 years. Thats all i do when im not working. How many years will it take to satisfy you. Btw. I'm in my fifty ith year. I programmed computers with punch cards! Man!

Bob said...

You're 50i years old? Wow, I never met anyone from imaginary time before.

I don't see why giving your years or your resumé would make up for the fact that you don't talk any sense. But hey, I don't really know why you'd want to convince me anyway... there's plenty of folks out there who love to talk about fractals and galaxies and things.

Personally I have a preference for inflation-driven ΛCDM cosmology (which does give rise to some fractal structure on some restricted scales). Mainly because all the aspects of this model have a lot of observational support. But I'm very open to arguments against it or arguments for a more convincing picture.

Pre-inflation, I'm intrigued by the idea of geometrogenesis, where a manifold geometry condenses naturally out of a stochastic network, which I've heard has had some observational support, but that stuff is beyond my understanding really, so I'm happy watching it from the sidelines.

I'd like to know more about baryogenesis. I'm really hoping that supersymmetric particles will be discovered at the LHC, because supersymmetry is such a neat step beyond the standard model that even though we haven't seen any of them yet, I don't want to believe it could be false. But if you have a satisfying argument, I'd be interested.

I don't have a problem with dark matter or dark energy, as I've said before. Not because they're "mainstream" but because there are actually lots and lots and lots of reasons in their favour. I don't see any convincing argument that Λ needs to be related in any way to a quantum vacuum energy renormalised with a Planck cut off.

I don't have an opinion on string theory, because (a) I don't understand it, and (b) there doesn't seem to be much to support it apart from some pretty maths and glimpses of unification.

And surely the fundamental language of cosmology is that of general relativity. Not a single astronomical observation made in the last century has ever conflicted with its very precise specifications in any way. You'd have to be utterly mad to ignore it.

Are you a tensor calculus person at heart, or a differential geometer?

I'm not a cosmologist, by the way. It's a fascinating and magnificent subject. I always had the view that it'd be very difficult to do justice to unless you really knew what you were doing.

Lori said...

Regarding relativity, my theory doesn't go against any of " laws of physics" as defined by Newton or by Einstein. I do however have to reinterpret Einsteins Special relativity slightly but I'll get into that later. Einstein's special relativity can be intuited very easily with a simple thought experiment.  I am a big fan of the thought experiment.  

First we need to visualize that matter is made of light (or more appropriately, the same phenomenon that causes light to come into existence also causes matter to come into existence). Einstein's famous energy-matter equation basically is stating that matter is made of light. 

The light inside the particle is moving in a circular fashon (therefore it is technically accelerating which is why c is squared in e=mc2). This internal light clock is moving at the speed of light when the particle is at rest. This is what produces the rest mass of the particle. The particle is lightest when it's internal light "clock" is moving at the speed of light. Because nothing can move faster than the speed of light, when we begin to accelerate the particle, the internal light clock must slow down such that the internal light velocity plus the external particle velocity equals exactly the speed of light.

When you visualize matter in this manner you can see that not only can nothing move faster than the speed of light, but that everything must move at exactly the speed of light. 

Bob said...

"Einstein's famous energy-matter equation basically is stating that matter is made of light" - no it isn't, not in any way.

"it is technically accelerating which is why c is squared in e=mc2" - the square of a speed isn't an acceleration. At all.

"the internal light velocity plus the external particle velocity equals exactly the speed of light" - that statement goes entirely against relativity.

In relativity, everything does move at the speed of light through spacetime. If you square both the velocity of the particle and the rate of its clock, and add them (in suitable relativistic units), and take the square root, then you get exactly the speed of light.

I don't understand why you prefer to make it up (and simply getting it wrong) instead of learning how it is. It's just ridiculous.

I think you should start writing your own version of Bulgarian poetry too. If anyone accuses you of not learning the language, you can rest assured that your many years of experience of trotting out this kind of nonsense will protect you from hearing what they say.

Lori said...

Now i'm going to answer some ofnthe questions and/or address somw of the comments you made in your last message.

"You're 50i years old? Wow, I never met anyone from imaginary time before."

That's funny. I didn't intend for it to be read that way but I wish I did. Actually, in my model, time it the only real dimension and the three spacial dimensions are imaginary. My spacetime manifold is modelled using quaternions.

Personally I have a preference for inflation-driven ΛCDM cosmology (which does give rise to some fractal structure on some restricted scales). Mainly because all the aspects of this model have a lot of observational support. But I'm very open to arguments against it or arguments for a more convincing picture."

Andre Linde's cosmic inflation theory is of particular interest to me for reasons that can be explained better in pictures rather than words.
 Look up anti-buddhabrot for a great visualization of cosmic inflation. Buddhabrot is a rendering of the complex plane via the mandelbrot set equation which generates a probability distribution of the trajectories of all the points from the OUTSIDE of the mandelbrot set. This produces an image that has a striking resemblence to a a seated buddha figure which is why I called it Buddhabrot. The anti- buddhabrot is the probability distribution of the trajectory of the points points from the INSIDE of the mandelbrot set. This produces an image that I think represents the cosmic inflation of Linde's theory. 

Lori said...

"Pre-inflation, "

I am currently studing and am intrigued by Ernest Sternglass's theory of pre big bang cosmology. In his book " Before the Big Bang" he postulates that the universe started out as a "ginormous" electron-positron pair which are orbiting each other at relativistic speeds. They then split over and over again, 270 times to be exact to generate all the matter/mass of the universe. At that point there was a phase transition which we interpret as the big bang. 

The reason I like this theory is because my fractal cosmology requires a space-time-matter manifold that divides and Sternglass's dividing electron-positron pairs nicely fits the bill. Sternglass actually met Einstein at one point in his career and he talks about this visit in his book. I have been in contact with him  (Sternglass not Einstein) and he was very kind and generous in answering my questions. Not rude at all.

There is another theory called the Aether Physics Model (APM) which I have been studying that is indirectly related. In this theory, a dynamic aether exists, which is made up of rotating magnetic fields. Of course we know that moving magnetic fields generate electric fields and moving electric fields generate magnetic fields, and so the rotating magnetic fields of APM could also be interpreted as rotating electron-positron pairs as Sternglass suggests.

Lori said...

I also subscribe to Hannes Alfven's plasma universe and Halton Arp's Quasar ejection hypothesis.

Bob said...

As you don't understand the physics behind these ideas, all you're doing is listing your random opinions and stories that you happen to like. Please stop.

Lori said...

When you look at the units of velocity, m/s and square them, you end up with meters per second SQUARED which are the units of acceleration. So your statement that velocity squared is not acceleration is patently WRONG. So who's spewing crap now Bob!

Bob said...

Velocity squared is meters squared per second squared. It's not an acceleration.

Jesus, most secondary school students taking GCSE physics in this country wouldn't make that mistake.

Like I said, there should be a name for people with a pathological inability to recognise their own lack of understanding. It's pretty tedious.

Sorry for dragging this on. I should have stuck with my initial sense that it's not worth trying to communicate with you. Even for comedy value. Let's drop it now.

Lori said...

You are correct Bob. I made a mistake. I meant to say meters squared per second squared and these are not the units of acceleration but are the units of rotational inertia when applied to a mass as in e = mc squared. Kgm2 /s2. Sorry but my ipad doesn't let me do superscript? I miss remembered what i thought I knew. I apologize for the mistake. I think it is interesting that the units for the mc2 are also the units for rotational inertia.

I guess we're done here. Nice knowing you.

Bob said...

"meters squared per second squared and these are not the units of acceleration but are the units of rotational inertia" - nope. The units of rotational inertia are kg/m².

" I think it is interesting that the units for the mc2 are also the units for rotational inertia" - nope. The units for mc² is kg.m²/s², also known as Joules. The unit of energy. Which is what the E stands for.

You better stay off the relativity theory.

Bob said...

Oops - I meant kg.m², not kg/m² :-)

Lori said...

Bob, before I go I just want to tell you that I appreciate you pointing out the error in my ways. I've decided to work really hard to try to unserstand relativity beyond the thought experiment point of view. since I work at the university, I can take courses for free so I'm going to start that in the new year. i really want to understand this stuff and I'm determined to do so (even given my advanced age ;-)

Peace out

Bob said...

Wonderful! Hope you enjoy it :-)

If you don't mind a bit of calculus, and you have a nice notebook and the patience to sit and enjoy, YouTube has some very good Stanford lectures on special relativity (ignore the youtube title, it really is relativity). It would be very good preparation for taking a course.

(There are further series on general relativity and cosmology, but they have to be saved for dessert...)

Lori said...

Thanks Bob, that's awesome. I'll definately check out the videos. As far as calculus goes, I haven't done calculus since 1985. I remember doing quite well though but i had a really good professor. The math I do for my job has more to do with transforming coordinate systems than calculus. I leave the hard math to the phd students I support so I've gotten a bit lazy that way. Every once in a while I readdress calculus and found some great youtube videos, in particular, speed calculus where this guy describes the best of calculus in 20 minutes. I'll definately do some prep work before taking a course. Good advice.


Bob said...

No problem, just go straight for the special relativity videos, you'll be fine. There's 8 of them, nearly 2 hours each one, all explained really clearly.

You may want to brush up on vectors and calculus before you get onto the general relativity, though. That one gets more mathematical.

Lori said...

Wow, that's Leonard Susskind from "The Black Hole Wars". I read that over the summer. What a great story and history lesson. He met and collaborated with all the greats. I highly recommend this book for anyone out there that's even remotely interested in black holes.

Can't wait to watch the videos.

Bob said...

Yes, I haven't read that book but I'd like to.

I just need to alert you to something about those relativity lectures. Not only are they all called "quantum entanglement part 3" instead of "special relativity", but they're numbered all wrong as well. Stanford really messed up.

I'll have to check the details, but here's the only possible order that makes sense...

Lecture 1 is called lecture 1
Lecture 2 is called lecture 4
Lecture 3 is called lecture 5
Lecture 4 is called lecture 6
Lecture 5 is called lecture 7
Lecture 6 is called lecture 2&3
Lecture 7 is called lecture 8
Lecture 8 is called lecture 9

There are lots of confused youtubers out there. Poor things. As if relativity isn't confusing enough already. I may do a post on this after I've checked them all out.

(The GR & cosmology ones were made later, when they knew what they were doing. They are all named sensibly.)

Lori said...

Thanks for the update.

I'm very excited about a message I just received at work and thought I would share it with you.

"I am pleased to inform you that your revised manuscript, referenced below, has been accepted for publication in Medical Physics."

"A Compact Mechatronic System for 3D Ultrasound Guided Prostate Interventions"

I am coauthor to this paper. I am also co-inventor of this device.

Of course I'm telling you this to save face a little. Hope it worked.

Anonymous said...

You should be called into sainthood for all the patience you've shown here, specially with some people.

I am a musician, and knew nothing or very little about physics when I first heard about NH. I'm not telling you what I thought of him at that point because it doesn't really matter, but after reading your blog (and those endless comments too!) I humbly began to do my own research, partly just for fun but mainly because the subject (physics) was getting more and more interesting.
This is just to tell you you've discovered a wonderful world to me. Sometimes I even wish I would've studied physics instead of music...;)

There's another thing. I'd like to recommend to everyone in my situation (that is, not being a physicist) and specially NH nuts chapter III of S,Hawking's The Grand Design, called "What Is Reality?". It's a very easy-to-read piece of literature, and believe me NH followers, although I can see you'd rather watch videos than grab a book, you don't even have to read the whole thing, just this chapter. There, I've found no arrogant science, but humble research and an open mind trying to explain a very difficult subject to people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hawking is one of the brightest we have, isn't he? I belive you'll see how the standard model is being questioned all the time by scientists, because that's what we do! Where's the status quo? (And yes Bob, that band always sucked.)

Sorry if my english is far from perfect,

Regards from Barcelona!


Bob said...

Thanks Dan

Don't worry, I sometimes wish I'd studied music instead of physics :)

Luckily, with a little spirit of adventure and a little patience, we can all enjoy some of the fruits of the most brilliant souls from whatever realm we're drawn to. I think that's great.

Anonymous said...

Dear Bob,

Thank you for your excellent review and analysis. I was asked to comment on the "award winning" paper by someone who felt there was something fishy about the whole deal and eventually found your analysis.

I also felt there was something very fishy about it, particularly since it's now being promoted as a "peer reviewed" paper. I checked his site, and the writing of a previous paper of Mr. Haramein's seemed a bit suspicious. Sections of it read as though English was his second language while other sections suddenly showed the grammatical style of someone who was a native English speaker. So I dug further.

A little investigation into the journal shows that it's a journal for physics teachers (not physicists) and that it is not a peer review but rather an editorial review (for folks not familiar with it, editorial reviews are when volunteers review the paper. Peer review is when they throw it at people who are published professionals in the field and it's their responsibility to shred it to bits. Having been through both types of reviews, I can tell you that an editorial review is mostly picky grammar points but a peer review is like being dipped in bacon grease and being thrown to a pack of staving wolves.)

I looked at the citations of the paper he has up on his site... and found he was citing his own unpublished papers, Wikipedia, and news releases. (For those of you not in the academic dog fights, those sources indicate bad research. Wikipedia is not considered a credible source (but a credible starting place.))

I *did* look up the CASYS awards and see that they have multiple awards for "best paper". It appears to be a small conference. Small conferences are nice, and it's fairly easy to get into one (as we both know.)

I checked CASYS to see who else won awards from them and the award for "naturescode" seems to be genuine for CASYS'09 (shown here: )

I see photos confirming it, and I see their paper listed on the symposium proceedings:

I do not see Mr. Haramein in there nor do I see a division where his paper would be placed.

Since I'm not a physicist, I offered his previously (web published) work as sacrificial paper up to my husband (who's a mathematician, and his comments pretty much echoed yours.)

So something doesn't quite add up. I admit there may be a good explanation for all of this, but it really did strike a very jarring note.

I see you've had a multi-month running discourse over this, so I thought I'd chime in and add my word of thanks. It's been an interesting read and I have enjoyed the deft and kindly way you have addressed things that others brought up.

Bob said...

Thanks very much for sharing your findings.

The 'editorial review' is spot on. AIP don't do any kind of peer review of conference proceedings. The term peer-review, rightly or wrongly, comes from the fact that the paper was selected by participants at the conference.

He was selected, and his paper does appear in the full conference proceedings, on page 95.

The paper is truly atrocious, even in its new final form, and Haramein is gleefully using his 'peer-reviewed' status to mislead more people into forking out to join his circus.

It points to serious failures by the conference organisers in allowing non-specialists to choose a paper as they did. I suspect Haramein's contacts had a hunch they could crack the system like this.

If you get the chance, please consider writing to the conference organisers, and/or to AIP, to inform them of their oversight. If you do, let me know what you hear back.

Thanks again.

Anonymous said...

Bob,Nassim Haramein is taking questions 3rd jan on open mic GLP live chat,google it

Bob said...

Google what

Anonymous said...

Wanting to preserve the concept of gravity will have to say that the atom is a system that integrated into its gravitational field or energy is the gravitational field.

muzuzuzus said...

Regarding 9/11, Bob, do you think the offical report is the correct one? Do they base it on science--what do you think?

PhysicsStudent said...

Hi Bob,

Thanks for doing what you're doing. Thought I'd comment to add a little support, as you seem to be mainly overwhelmed with NH's army of pseudo-scientists here.

To the NH supporters, why do you insist on talking about things you don't understand? That's my main issue here. Approaching Physics from a completely new point of view is perfectly fine, and arguably essential to the progression of science, but when you take a new stance, you can't just steal ideas from the old model. A lot of you are referencing stuff like entanglement, but I'm willing to put a lot of money on the fact that none of you UNDERSTAND the path that led to the development of the theory of entanglement. For you to try to transpose it into your own situation is therefore completely arrogant and redundant.

Feel free to continue thinking of new ways to look at the world as this is an admirable and respectable thing to do. Don't, however, try to rubbish what already exists.

Bob said...

Thanks Physics Student. There are rather a lot of them, aren't there! I rather like them. It shows the kind of thinking of people who support and want to defend Haramein pretty clearly, which is very interesting.

The main common theme seems to be that these are people for whom open-mindedness is important, and for them this means not clinging to the 'mainstream' and not dismissing new and creative theories, which is what they see us as doing.

What they don't seem to have realised is how narrow-minded it is to just treat every new idea as if it has equal value. To do that, you have to entirely ignore whether or not it bears any resemblance to the world it's supposed to describe. That is almost the definition of wilful ignorance, which is not remotely compatible with open-mindedness.

Even worse, many of them dismiss 'the mainstream' as if it's a dogma rather than bothering to look and see what it is. The powerful predictions, the logical clarity of the concepts, and the breadth of insight that emerges from them, the astonishing amount of information that supports them, the decades or centuries of creative challenges and the complete lack of evidence against them. For someone to just dismiss all that without any reason let alone any understanding – how much more narrow-minded can someone be?

Unfortunately when people are unwilling or unable to consider these things, there's not a lot you can say to them. If they think they're open-minded, they'll ignore you and go away still feeling open-minded, and there's nothing you can do about it. Bless their bigoted little souls.

Anonymous said...

The 5th conclusion of NH's model puts the proton in agreement with the scaling law between mass and radius. You stop your analysis at this point. Why? Nassim's conclusion seems intuitively correct. What would it take to work backwards toward this result using conventional physics? Does Nassim's work help in any way in this regard?

Bob said...

I stopped because I got tired of trying to explain what seems to me to be nonsense. I felt I'd said enough, and nobody has asked me to carry on.

To start with, notice that only very particular objects have been chosen. To get something to fit on the line, it has to either be a black hole or some large astronomical object. Try plotting a human being, or a tree (or indeed anything else you have ever seen!) on that graph, and you'll realise how utterly NON-universal it is. Even the planet Earth doesn't fall near the line. Neither does a human cell, or a DNA molecule, or an atom. Nothing falls near the line except for black holes and the large astronomical objects he plotted.

What he's doing is called cherry-picking. It's one of the most disreputable and deeply misleading things any scientist could be accused of. It's very plain to see here, and it's just one more addition to the long, long list of complaints against Haramein.

I hope that goes some way to answering your question.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Bob. I am an ex-scientist who now dabbles in spiritual or paranormal matters such as crop circles, UFOs and the like. I talk to many people who don't have the scientific training to understand what they're hearing about.

On another forum, NH named was mentioned and someone was very excited about him. I agree that he attracts countercultural people because everyone likes a radical and it's fashionable to be against the mainstream. And his ideas sound really cool and so on.

I read the Schwarzschild paper first when I researched him and then I found this blog post. I agree with you that the paper leaves a lot to be desired, and is really just an idea, not a developed theory. It raises many more questions than it answers. Maybe in 10 years he could develop this into a more solid, fleshed out theory, or maybe not.

It is not very cool really to criticize someone whom people really seem to like, and I do feel somewhat bad, but I will be posting a note to this forum where NH came up with a link to your blog. Because I’m “one of them”, a believer in the same things that they believe in, my view might carry some weight. I also think that your patience and integrity in keeping your critique in the realm of strict science, and willingness to keep on despite running into roadblocks that most physicists would get stuck on (“Well, it’s only a model, so let’s keep going…”). I like that approach very much, because for those who want NH to be correct, in their hearts, they will need more than just a cursory examination to come to a conclusion that doesn’t match their hopes. If you were not as respectful and dedicated to the patient pursuit of truth as you seem to be I wouldn't be comfortable to link to your blog. So thank you.
Gordon Hogenson

Anonymous said...

Bob, it was my understanding that the Schwarzchild proton fits the NH scaling law because of similar atomic density with the other objects. Doesnt this suggest to you that by changing the atomic density of the mass that we change its weight as seen by gravity? We know that Tesla was able to alter the affect of gravity on an object by using magnetic fields. Maybe the electon cloud moves closer to nucleus under magnetic influence. Cant we work backwards with conventional physics to reconcile the difference between weight and mass by controlling atomic density?

Anonymous said...

i would like to first say ...yes i'm an idiot. i have no idea what your talking about or any idea what the people responding to you are talking about. but i would like to know at the end of the day... what is going to be the conclusion of a unified field theory? how is it going to help better mankind? meaning what are going to be the practical uses of this once it is figured out or is it just the pursuit of "yeah we figured everything out aren't we just so smart" lol i'm not trying to be demeaning and i apologize if i'm coming off that way. with all the problems that the majority of the world is facing RIGHT NOW i would say that you could use all the scientific knowledge you already have to help with these problems we have RIGHT NOW. or in another way of saying it... use your abilities in thinking, in areas of problems that are more vital to meet the needs of the world RIGHT NOW.

Bob said...

Ian, I don't know what use a unified field theory will be. And I don't really care. There haven't been any fundamental theories of physics that have turned out to be useless in the whole of history.

The uses are rarely seen beforehand. Nobody at the cutting edge of quantum mechanics in the 1920s would have foreseen the development of computers, mobile phones, medical equipment, etc that would come directly out of it and become integral to everyday life within a century. I think the lesson from that is that even if you're obsessed with things having a 'use', just be patient. There's no reason to go around discouraging people from inquiring into the way things are. It's an essential part of humanity. What the world needs, surely, is a broad range of people doing a broad range of things: some concerned with right now, and some with the future.

Bob said...

Anonymous... er, no. I just gave a sufficient answer to show that the scaling law is bollocks. It's bollocks. Drop it.

Anonymous said...

having a use for everything is NOT an obsession. it's a necessity. my point is that all this quantum stuff is useless RIGHT NOW... we are at a point where at any given moment the entire structure of our society could collapse and what good would all that physics be then. what i was saying was not discouraging to inquiring why things are the way they are.. it is a call for people to wake up and look around at the world we live in. there won't be a future if we don't do something to save ourselves and the planet RIGHT NOW. that is why i was saying to use these wonderful minds in areas that they are needed in RIGHT NOW. look at the people running this world. their idiots who are out for one thing power, which includes money and ego boosting. they don't care about you the brilliant scientist or me the common man. your brilliant minds need to be the ones who are running this world not these greedy heartless bastards. now i can't say how you could do it but the fact that you guys and gals can think of all these wonderful things that help out the world down the road can surely find a way to get control of the madness and make sure that everyone has a future. please please please understand what i'm asking of you.. this is not an attack.. it's a plea to save humanity. yes that's a daunting task.. but who better to tackle it than the smartest people in the world??? RIGHT NOW

Bob said...

I don't agree. For the reasons I said. If someone came and took all the "quantum stuff" out of your life, you'd soon change your mind about it being useless.

Perhaps these wonderful minds are capable of making their own decisions regarding priorities.

D said...

Hi Bob,

The Schwarzschild Proton paper has been peer-reviewed and published at the American Institute of Physics, now what I'm wondering is if it is possible that a paper which you say is so full of misleading non-scientific nonsense crackpottery can pass such a review?

Also, have you read his response to your debunking? (

BTW, I neither believe in you or NH as I don't have the scientific background to judge what you are saying, I just like to read about the different ideas out there since some of them are quite fascinating but I leave it at that

Bob said...

Hi D,

Thanks for your questions. Yes, I've examined in detail both his publication by AIP and his response to my blog.

If you're interested, you can find the answer to your question about Haramein's paper and the AIP here: http;//

And you can find my explanation as to why Haramein's response does not address a single one of the criticisms I made of his work here:

If you don't have the scientific background, I'd like to advise you to find someone who does have a scientific background who you feel able to trust, ask them to look into these issues for you, and see what they say. Haramein is a charlatan, and a very crude one at that - it is obvious to anyone with any scientific background.

You're right not to take my word for it if you don't understand. Please ask someone who has some familiarity with the nature of protons or black holes to check out what he's saying (and what I'm saying, if you like) before you take anything on board.

Finding a story 'fascinating' isn't a reliable guide to what reality is actually like. Of course it's fine if you just want entertaining :-)

AP said...

I have come back to revisit this place and see whats new. Nothing much besides Nassim's bunk, his peer-review is a joke, and Bob has once again displayed to us very plainly why as he is able to do so eloquently, so that is that!

All of the urgent feeling that Ian has is part of the pseudo-hippie "lets rebel against every institution" its a big waste of time. Now Haramein has even come under the attention of Phil Plait from bad as a big quake and nothing but a pseudo-science God. I pray everyday that I wake up that Nassim Haramein doesn't spread his seed and make more Nassim Naramein's in an effort to populate this Earth with moron's who are only second in their enormous level of dumbassness to the likes of Sara Palin and perhaps maybe Glen Beck.

The real question in my mind has really NOTHING to do with physics at this point. I am just asking if, or or anybody ANYBODY is willing to do a formal psychological workup on Haramein, and then Glen Beck and compare the two and let me know which person is worse to have on this planet. I mean seriously, who is a more dangerous person, NH or GB? Or maybe Sara Palin?

Ok be fair I guess Nassim is better then the latter two because at least he isn't a racist bigot or a right wing religious freak. Ill give him that much, he has enough sense to know some thing outside of science and his "field" which I agree with politically. BUT-

When it comes to science- no.

The problem is exactly that there are people who want to know about the "different ideas" out there, and instead of learning about the "different ideas" out they should simply be studying, physics, educating themselves, not on "ideas" but hard science fact, maybe some mathematics or real physics.

Anonymous said...

So, you're going to dismiss a scientific paper with poor english and quotes from wikipedia?
Oh, really??

Bob said...

Er, no... but I am going to dismiss a pseudoscientific paper presented by a manipulative salesman by outlining a ton of massive flaws in it.

Do let me know if you'd like to discuss any of them...

Anonymous said...

A friend of mine introduced me to this paper, convinced that he had found a revolutionary idea that was one of physics best kept secrets. He briefly explained it as "the nuclei of atoms are tiny black holes" and I immediately dismissed it thinking - apparently rightly so - that it was merely well disguised pseudoscience. With a little bit of google research I too was convinced that Haramein was on to something. All I really wish to say is thank you for the article. Rather than setting out to confuse fact with speculation, as Haramein does, it presents the matter at hand in a clear and understandable fashion. Hopefully others will also look a little deeper into this crackpot's so called science and find the truth, here.

Plant Guy said...

Normally, I would never comment on this sort of thing since the internet is a great way to draw the ire of a thousand faceless bloggers, but I'm totally impressed.

First, Bob, you've done a great job. Your criticism of NH's work was clear, simple, and (maybe too) forgiving. The way your original post probed and debunked the assumptions and conclusions of the paper mirrors the discussion of real journals' peer-reviewers (except not nearly as scathing as a real peer-review). [PS that is to say, that real peer reviewers (not the conference kind) would have said all that, and much more, before deciding to reject NH's article]. Although I've only had a few courses in Physics and Astronomy, I could easily follow along your reasoning (which is much more than I can say for NH's paper or any of his videos, filled with stars of david).

At the same time, you've shown immense (but not unlimited) patience for the hodgepodge of newage cosmo-cultists that have come out to tout their beliefs (in all caps) here. Even through the longest nonsense run-on posts, filled with distracting vignettes about career choices and so-and-so's latest book, etc. you manage to come back with pleasant or at least civil comments. Amazing.

And I must also give kudos to the cosmo-cultists whose thirst for affirmation of their beliefs allows them to stretch the meaning of 'science' far beyond its intended place. Reading the fever and selective ignorance of some pseudoscientists really makes me scared about some people's definition of science.

In the fall, I'm going to begin a PhD program in Plant Biology. And I'm terrified that despite my own diligence and integrity, in the search for a cooperative understanding of the truth, there are people out there who don't want to talk about truths. Instead of intelligibly discussing your critique of the paper (though there are some unintelligible attempts), there are so many comments on this post that are trying to paint a picture of you as some sort of dogmatic villain. When really, all you're doing is inviting some scientific discourse on a scientific topic. [How attempting to establish protons as black holes creates expertise in other areas, like the knights templar and the extraterrestrial foundations of human civilization... is another topic altogether]

I know that science isn't supposed to be easy, but I had no idea that people who were not trained as scientists could be so violent in their defense of a hobbiest's understanding of scientific concepts. Why go through all the trouble of refining skills, learning, and contributing to a field, if non-scientists won't know how to distinguish dream from data??

Lola said...

I give Haramein credit for opening people's eyes to new possibilities and getting them excited about learning. I really enjoyed watching his lecture and it seems entirely plausible. Theories are unproven and not necessarily true. The truth is that humanity has hardly scratched the surface of understanding the universe and we do not even understand very simplistic concepts. You can't disprove someone's body of work from a theory. Haramein's ideas could be complete bunk, but I have spent years researching and there is a lot of merit in his research on pyramids and ET's. You have to risk being wrong to get it right.

Both my husband and I have pondered about entire universes existing within each atom for the last 10 years. We are also at the understanding that the universe is one. I doubt there will ever be a way to prove this, but when truth rocks your existence with undeniable clarity you will know it to be as such. And when you really feel truth, no equation or theory will be able to sway you otherwise.

Bob said...

You say "theories are unproven and not necessarily true" - but entirely false theories are readily proven false, which is exactly what I've done here. Haramein's vision is necessarily untrue - there are many undeniable reasons for this. Though if you're filled with conviction, as you say, no equation or theory will be able to sway you.

I'm fascinated by this intuitive feeling of "when you really feel truth", and the unassailable level to which it's been elevated in some sections of our culture. I found this talk by Kathryn Schultz very moving and relevant on this.

Towards the end of her talk, she says: "we can't trust the inner feeling of being right, because it sometimes misleads us, and we can't trust the inner feeling of being wrong because it basically doesn't exist until it's too late. So what are we supposed to do? When you think about it the answer's kind of obvious. If we can't look inside to figure out whether or not we might be wrong, then we need to look outside. We need to look to each other."

"We need to externalise the problem of how to figure out when we've got it right and when we've got it wrong. And specifically, and somewhat difficultly, we need people who disagree with us. We need to invite the doubters and the critics and the adversaries into the conversation with us."

I think it behoves us to look carefully at the people who promote the ideas we're convinced are true. Are they "inviting the doubters and the critics and the adversaries into the conversation", or do they rely on encouraging us to focus on our inner feeling of being right?

In the end, perhaps the question is: do we care whether our intuitions and inner convictions are capable of taking us away from reality (as they undoubtedly have and continue to do for many many people in the history of the world), or will we follow them to the ends of the Earth. I can understand why people choose to follow their sense of inner clarity to the ends of the Earth. But I think we're capable of better.

Lola said...

Best summed up by Einstein.. what is accepted as truth is always changing and it is better to focus on imagination.

Although your words are eloquent and well spoken,it seems as though you have never felt truth. We shouldn't restrain ourselves by anyone else's ideas of right or wrong.

Lola said...

I have gotten in trouble when I did not listen to my instinct, but it never lead me wrong.

Bob said...

Einstein didn't say that, nor did he believe it. Have you studied his life and his work, or just read a few little quotes?

It's telling that you choose to tell me what I have felt rather than ask me. Something's very wrong if you don't see that as deeply arrogant, and rather ridiculous.

As I say, I think we're capable of better.

If your mind is made up, then good luck to you.

Lola said...

I never once said that Haramein was a genius or even that he was right. Please examine the reasons why you feel the need to argue with every person who posts.

Lola said...

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
Albert Einstein

Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Albert Einstein

All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
Albert Einstein

Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.
Albert Einstein

The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.
Albert Einstein

The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.
Albert Einstein

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
Albert Einstein

I haven't researched Einstein nor do I know the reasons why he said these things, but he said them.

Bob said...

You want to be free to misquote Einstein without anyone correcting you, and make insinuations about what you think is behind what I'm saying on my blog without me disputing it.

Fair enough.

Anonymous said...

ITT: op gets trolled

Anonymous said...

sad when you can't tell the difference between someone trolling and Harameins minions.

the stupidity they exhibit is beyond's not just their lack of understanding in physics, it's their sheer stupidity in the face of facts.

Anonymous said...

someone turned me on to this site as I was impressed with movie of Nassim. I believe in one mind and a higher power but I also believe there is so much information out there and we need to investigate before our we expand our inner instinct of believing everything we see and hear. I'm glad you showed me he was not a physicist and it will make me more aware in the future.

Velomark said...

Haramein minds is thousands of light year from you, just it. The old concepts about Bhorr models, and others about proton-electron is just a copy of solar system, but, can be not reproducet in atomic models. So, you dont have nothing new. You cant explain what matter really is. Someone just say: matter is what have massa and occupies a location in space. I my concept, matter is the location where the space do not existis, Haramein concept say that matter is the other side of space, like a fractal, good concept, really new, something new.

Bob said...

When have I even mentioned a Bohr model (never mind a Bhorr model)? It's amazing how many people just ignore what I've written and instead entirely make up where I'm coming from. Do you even know you're doing it?

Haramein has pretty ideas for grabbing the attention of people who like a story and don't care to check or question anything. If you just want a shiny new story, and you're not at all interested in all the reasons why it bears no relation at all to the observable world, and if you don't care if he's lying to you, abusing your trust and pretending to be something he's not, then I can see why you think it's good. There's no doubting his popularity among those who can't be arsed to look beneath the surface.

Let me know if you think there's actually anything wrong in anything I've said.

Velomark said...

what the electron dont collapses it self? Is not a electral charge? Why? What is a electron? You see it? "hey my friend electron, come here to take o cup of coffe". No protons, no electrons, what you see is what you want see and what is "acepted" as true for a community of persons.

Neutrons was created to establish the atom: ohh, great, who establish the proton? other creation, who establish other creation, other and so on.

"Big bang"...Oh, "Big bang" is the answer. Why you think that this is science? If Haramein is not science, why "big bang" is?

If the time and observation prove that Haramein conjecture is rigth, you will wrong. Just time will get the answer. But the Sun whas proved it and many says: "impossible". Possible with rigth knowledge.

Bob said...

Hello Velomark. You appear to be upset about something. Doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with anything I've written.

One thing though: observation has already conclusively proved that Haramein is wrong. Can this be made any more clear? What 'answer' could you possibly be waiting for?

Marius said...

Hello Bob. I really appreciate this discussion you have created, I have just learned about NH and his work, and was at first very excited and then disappointed when I found out that his work is so questionable and perhaps "false". Some people here saying you are wasting your time, but I disagree, this is very important. NH's ideas can seem simple, and I wish there would be an equation or something tangible created from his theories that were accepted by the rest of the physics community. No matter if todays physics has problems with his logic, I still find some of his ideas(not all, don't have any support for that) coming from logical reasoning. His theories coveres vast areas, and if he didn't really believed all he is saying, I would say he is an extremely clever con-artist. Physics, and science, starts with philosophy and your perspective, where you picture things from. Things, I mean the world, can be seen as something extremely complex, but also at the same time, as something very simple. The idea that everything can be melted down to a simple idea may be a naive one, but i find it very interesting that Einstein ended up up with his famous, and yet very simple equation:E=mc2. I don't know what the future brings, but I don't believe it is such a crazy idea that in the end, when everything is accounted for, we will have a simple idea, or equation as the answer for everything. So, in that respect, I think NH is doing something positive in the name of science. If not everything of what he says will be proven correct, I think at least some of his ideas will bring us closer to the truth.

Bob said...

Hi Marius - thanks for your thoughts.

As you say, NH's ideas can seem simple. I put it to you that there's a very simple explanation for that: it's because he's just made them up. There is no sensible reasoning behind them, and certainly no evidence, because he doesn't care about either of those.

Haramein is a story-teller, he knows how to hold and fascinate an audience, and unfortunately he also knows how to make them believe he knows what he's talking about. I don't refer to him as a fraud because I disagree with him, or because I think he's mistaken, it's because he's a fraud. It's a very serious thing.

As you say, he's a very clever con-artist… but I suspect he is also able to con himself into believing that he knows what he's talking about. After all, he's now surrounded by doting fans who think he's the new Einstein. He's likely to be as vulnerable to believing them as they are to believing his stories.

Again, you're right to say that there's nothing wrong with the idea that everything can be melted down to simple concepts. It's a great idea. In fact it's ideal! Einstein did it, I'd say Feynman did it too - both will always be regarded as geniuses of the first order for exactly this reason.

But it's no good if you're incompetent, and it's no good if you don't pay the slightest attention to all the reasons why it's false. As is the case with Haramein. All you're doing then is making up stories.

There is no sense at all in which this is positive for science. He encourages people to dispense with critical thinking (and if you don't know what I mean, start asking the man some difficult questions about his theories and you'll soon see what he thinks of people who think for themselves! It's not a pretty sight. I can't recommend highly enough that you witness this for yourself.)

It's potentially very destructive to the people who are genuinely seeking the truth about the universe to be subjected to this kind of cult behaviour.

As I've said in many other comments, the question of whether or not everything - or indeed anything - he says will be proven correct is not a relevant question given that every idea he puts forward can be so easily shown to be false.

I guess from your comment that you're keen to keep open the idea that he might be right on some important things. I strongly urge you to keep questioning his ideas, if you care at all whether or not there's any truth in them, and see where that takes you.

There is nothing positive in believing a con-man just because you want it to be true.

lichencomputer said...

Hi Bob! I'd like to thank you for all the effort you've put into what is clearly a significant issue. I've gotten a lot of interesting info from your blog over the last couple of days.

In reading Haramein's responses to your criticisms, I am not sure why you do not think he has responded to any of your points in any significant way. In response to your points of question, he does present a lot of explanation and background for his ideas (many of which are not original and have long been considered by credible physicists), seemingly making it clear that he hasn't just made it all up himself for a charlatan's agenda. And he really doesn't seem to let any of your alleged proof of his fraudulence stand unaddressed. Overall he seems rather patient and welcoming toward debate, even though you haven't exactly treated it as a debate as such.

Maybe this talk about the 'standard model' not being set in stone, and the 'established laws of physics' not necessarily holding up in the face of all available data, are very good points from which to suggest new models that stem first from sound philosophy as well as theoretical physics. If he really was alone with only a couple other pseudoscientists to back up his ideas, I think the picture you're painting of him would hold more ground. Please don't go "a bit horrid" on me, but I simply didn't expect to find his response to you so informative, from your dismissive statements about it.

I've read most everything you've had to say so far on this blog, so if you don't consider this input at all valid, it probably isn't worth you typing up another dismissive response. I'm not speaking up just for a taste of all that.

lichencomputer said...

(I am referring to the response of his entitled The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto.)

Vijay.Sharma said...

I am sorry the author of this blog hasn't provided any great reasons for NH's "fraud". All you have done is assert that whatever NH has presented is not possible because you believe it is not possible.

For one, you need to understand that when someone presents a new theory and quite clearly expressing that some of the existing beliefs and scientific paradigms may be wrong. Then you must not use the same paradigms and beliefs to evaluate the proposal. How fraudulent is that?

Please find more solid reasons to negate the theory than making assertions and slinging mud on the proposer of a new theory. Your reaction is the typical reaction of someone who has held on to a particular paradigm and invested so much in it that he gears changing his mind now.

Is NH's theory perfect? No! Does it provide us a new understanding of the universe and explain some of the anomalies that other theories cannot. Yes! Understanding existence is a continuous process and I am not sure if the human species will ever be able to understand everything. But our understanding will keep improving and we will keep unraveling the universe bit by bit. I think NH's theory is one such bit of unraveling the universe.

You need to find better ways to refute his theories than clinging on to some scientific dogma. When Planck said of his quantum theory that any new theory starts gaining acceptance funeral by funeral, he was probably referring to the same attitude you are demonstrating. Ridicule, mud slinging, character assassination are the weapons of people who are incapable of being open to new ideas. I hope you will not get "a bit harsh" with me for my comment

Bob said...

Hi Lichencomputer and Vijay.Sharma. Thanks for your thoughts. Don't worry, I'm not going to attack you.

You might disagree, but I don't think I've been harsh to anyone, except when people have been obnoxious towards me or refused to listen to anything I've said and continued spouting false opinions. I'm not here to be harsh or attack anyone. I'm not interested in that at all. What I'd like is to discuss and to debate, to respond to what you're saying, to try to express why I think the way I think, and to be free to agree or disagree, with reasons, with what other people are saying.

If that doesn't sound reasonable to you, please say so and I'll keep my thoughts to myself and remove your comment. This is a discussion forum, after all. I'd like to have a discussion with a bit of vitality to it without feeling that if I strongly disagree with someone I will be accused of attacking them.

I'm not saying this is what you are like, at all, I don't think you are at all. There certainly have been commenters who are like this. But I want to try to clarify where I'm coming from.

I don't really want to get into conversations with people who take personal offence whenever someone expresses strong disagreement with what they're saying.

I actually really like people with different views to me.

I just find it unpleasant if they can't stand the fact that I might express disagreement with them.

I hope that makes sense. I just want to get that clear.

I'd like to get back to both of you when I have some time to consider what you're saying in more detail, because I'm interested in discussing with you. I do actually agree with a lot of what you're both saying. But not all. And I'd like to say so. If you don't like being disagreed with, please say so now.

Hopefully we won't have to talk about each other's attitudes, because I just find that dull. I'd rather just get on with talking about the subject matter, and I assume you would too.

Catchya laters.

FractalWoman said...

I'm back. I just wanted to thank you for the advice to watch Suskind's video series. It was emmensely helpful and informative. I particularily like the one where he writes down the number 364 (number of days in the year -1) instead of 359 ( number of degrees in a circle - 1). He even laughed at himself for that one. Have to admit, he is a good teacher.

No, I have not given up on my theory of the universe, but now, I have some tools with which to formalize my theory. Thanks for that. I have also recruited an atomic/particle physicist (a real one with a PhD) to help me with this formalization. He is very intrigued by my ideas and hasn't found anything yet that is incorrect and/or that I haven't been able to defend.

The main premise of my theory is that the equation that governs the creation of the universe must be a simple equation, one even more elegant than e equals mc squared. It must be short and it must have zero (tweekable) parameters. There is such an equation, or more appropriately, a function, that is simple, elegant and has zero (tweekable) parameters. It is the function commonly referred to as The Mandelbrot Set: z equals z squared plus c where z and c ar complex numbers. In other words, the universe is created via an iterated function system. All phenomenon like gravity and electromagnetism become emergent properties of this system.

FractalWoman said...

In my model, the "black" regions of the M-Set are equivalent to black holes. As you zoom into the Mandelbrot Set, you find black holes at various different scales all the way down to the quantum level (coincidentally, a 64 bit computer has 33 digits of precision, just like our universe). This Mandelbrot Set shows how black holes can exist at various different scales, including the quantum scale. Therefore, I don't think Nassim is wrong in thinking that protons are black holes at that scale, since the strong force does appear to be self-similar (not self-same) to gravity. This is only one reason why I think Nassim is on the right track about the true nature of black holes.

Another thing that Nassim and I agree on is that black holes and galaxies co-evolve so this recent news becomes pertinent:

All for now,



Here is my first attempt at formalizing my theory:

Bob said...

Hello FW. Glad you liked the lectures.

I hope you'll understand if I want to keep the discussion here to Haramein. I've given plenty of solid reasoning as to why his ideas are incorrect, and you're giving me your opinion that some of his ideas are ok. If you have more than an opinion, I'll be interested.

Your fractal ideas are philosophically pretty but there's nothing scientific about them, so I do hope you're not going to claim that they give any kind of scientific support to anything of Haramein's that could invalidate anything I've said here. You're not claiming that, are you?

Can we just agree to disagree? I don't want to go through all those arguments again.

lichencomputer said...

Hi Bob.

The fact that Vijay and I ended on the same note (copycat!) made our already-similar posts incredibly similar!

I am glad you welcome disagreement. Of course you do! Me too. But I figured it was possible that if you read my post after a long exasperating day of knocking down the MANY obnoxious commenters on here, I might regret getting involved, so I threw in 'please be nice' cuz that's how I roll.

But still, my point. I am very willing to consider, due partly to your diligence, that Nassim Haramein is not much of a scientist and that the physics of his ideas are problematic, incomplete, even replete with errors. But it seems clear that you think he should be stopped, exposed as a fraud, as though he has nasty, greedy intentions, and I say, hang on.

Maybe you're right to be frustrated when your attempts to engage him anonymously over the internet were largely rejected (besides his formally released statements), but I mean, you treat him as a fraud, and you're an anonymous blogger on the internet. Why would anyone taking their own work seriously bother to engage that approach? Besides, his ideas are not original enough to allow the accusation "he made it all up" to be entirely valid. I don't have enough background to know if particular information could be subtly misused, but I trust my own intellect a bit, and I found his responses so clear that I thought he had truly defended himself. But then there is the question of what exactly, in relation to Bobly views, is he defending?

There is a simple logic to his overall approach that gives him the confidence to suggest some fairly bold modifications of current thinking in physics (even if he's not quite getting it right in the details himself yet). He has been eager to share this with the world. He calls The Schwarzchild Proton a work in progress, so I look forward to this next draft. Meanwhile, this interpersonal battle shows that when people are of extremely differing world views, one person's view may look like nonsense to the other.

This logic that I ascribe to the overall picture he presents is due to his model being born via fairly simple questions about current thinking, logical deductions that he explains well, and sound philosophy that traces back to Pythagoras and elsewhere. I have seen Haramein speak, have conversed with him, and I do not think he could be 'lying'. Most of these ideas exist without him. He is rather making efforts to synthesize some very important ideas which, in their naked form, are constructive and significant. I am pleased that someone is working to construct a coherent physics to describe it.

My statements leave much room for easy criticism. As I write, I hear what I would say to me if I were someone else.

Always, science has sought to be the mechanism for describing the world as we see it, so what about when many people begin to understand the world entirely differently from those who described it before? What I mean is, Nassim's geometric model of a 64-tetrahedron fractal matrix guiding the mechanisms of formation is one among many in common. Others are describing a very similar model from many different holistic approaches, and they largely don't even know about eachother. I read an essay by a man (name forgotten) using almost the exact same model to describe cell division and biological formation, and with no idea about NH. And Michael Hayes synthesizes the common mathematics between DNA and many other systems including the ancient I Ching, and the figures are again the same. He also is unaware of Nassim's work. It may be that no one's getting it right yet, and that it all represents a change of some kind, maybe a renaissance.

FractalWoman said...

"Your fractal ideas are philosophically pretty but there's nothing scientific about them"

Well, there is a good reason for that. The universe has nothing to do with science and vise versa. Science is a human invention and is entirely meaningless in the grander scheme of things. As soon as we think we have it all figured out, the universe will change all the rules (if only just to piss off all the scientists) and we will have to start from scratch. That is the nature of chaos theory. Change is inevidable, and resistance (to change) is futile.

That said, I agree to disagree.

lichencomputer said...

Sorry Bob. I look over my post and I realize,
So what if he has some cool ideas in principle? This blog is all about him being wrong. Why bother trying to discuss the merits of aspects of the ideas themselves if they're not being properly represented?
I thought I'd be positive because I see merit in these ideas that transcend NH, but really I'm just shoveling more dirt onto the grave of what I thought NH was, and I feel like a fool.

Since he won't stop (nor you), let's see how it plays out. Maybe you two end up friends one day.

lichencomputer said...

Of course, the post that I wrote that I was referring to in my last comment seems to have disappeared, so whatever value might have been gleaned from the input is byebye.

Bob said...

Sorry l.c., stoopid spam filter grabbed it - it's back now. Thanks for your input, I'll respond soon.

FractalWoman - I don't know what science means to you, but to me it means paying attention to nature and trying to find out what it is like, rather than making it up.

Anonymous said...

"I don't know what science means to you, but to me it means paying attention to nature and trying to find out what it is like, rather than making it up"
So did we find it? It seems to me that Natives found out about nature much better then we are and they did it all without "science". They were much better off without our "science" and it seems that Earth doesn't like our "science" very much. When you think, most of modern science is based on pure imagination. String theory? What the hack is a string? Oh right, the tiny strand of energy. And what the hack is that? Well it is too small to be proven by any experiment. Oh yeah, but mathematics describes it perfectly. Really? Does it describe tiny strand of energy called string, or simply a.... rubber band? Hm.... science will tell....

Bob said...

I don't know what science means to you either, but it doesn't sound nice.

FractalWoman said...

"FractalWoman - I don't know what science means to you, but to me it means paying attention to nature and trying to find out what it is like, rather than making it up. "

...which is exactly what I am doing.

Just because I am taking a different approach, doesn't make it any less scientific. I am a computer scientist. (Computer Science IS a science, and therefore I am a scientist by definition.) I write computer programs that simulate or replicate what nature does. I do pay close attention to nature. That is the driving force behind my fractal cosmology ideas. I am very interested in how nature behaves, but more importantly, I am most curious about what drives the creation and evolutionaly processes. This is the essence of my work. Without looking at nature, I would have nothing to say.

Bob said...

Yesterday you said, " The universe has nothing to do with science and vise versa. Science is a human invention and is entirely meaningless in the grander scheme of things."

I don't doubt that you fully believe that you know what you're talking about. Anyway, none of this has any bearing on the criticisms I've made of Haramein.

The point is that he is clearly uninterested in the many discrepancies between the implications of his ideas and what can be clearly observed in nature, so long as he can still sell his guff. There is no approach to science that has any scope for that kind of attitude.

FractalWoman said...

"""Yesterday you said, " The universe has nothing to do with science and vise versa. Science is a human invention and is entirely meaningless in the grander scheme of things.""""

I knew you were going to say that!!! (and I hate when that happens). Anyways, I said "The Universe" cares not for science. As for myself, I am human and yes, I am inventing my science, making it up as you say, just like you and yours. I know who you are. You are the guy, looking for trouble no matter what anyone says. At least I have my own ideas, am thinking for myself. Right or wrong, it is the right thing to do.


Bob said...

Ok, I must get back to lichencomputer, as promised. When it comes to people with differing views to my own, it's harder to respond to thoughtful and well-constructed comments than to comments from people who just want to make blind accusations of me. So please forgive the delay, but I wanted to give l.c.'s comments some thought.

Also please forgive the length of this comment! Hopefully it will answer some questions and spark some discussion.

1. Merits

First of all, regarding your last comment: I do want Haramein's ideas to be properly represented here. Very definitely. I don't approve of cherry-picking by other people, and I don't want to engage in it here.

I'd love to discuss the merits of his ideas. That's why I've asked over and over again for anyone who can provide reasoning or evidence for any implications of his ideas having any demonstrable relationship at all to anything specific that can be observed in the Universe that his theories claim to describe.

The problem is not that I'm unwilling to discuss them - I'm very willing. The problem is that nobody has actually been able to find any.

So yes, please be positive, and I'll be positive too. But I won't pretend something works when it does not - I'll say it doesn't work, because that's important.

This blog is specifically about his claims to be doing scientific research and his claims to have new theories and valuable insights into physics - claims which I assert are entirely false. I can be as positive as you like, but I won't be dishonest, and all of Haramein's claims will still be false.

As I've said before, if you want to extoll his merits as a story-teller or a purveyor of nice New Age aphorisms that make you feel happy, that's up to you. My point is that he's abusing people's trust by pretending to be something he's not, and that his fans are being grossly misled into thinking he has any insight into the nature of the physical Universe at all.

I wouldn't want to be claiming that if it wasn't true. As I've been saying for over a year now, if anyone can find any examples to the contrary, I'd love to hear about them.

Bob said...

2. Response

Regarding Haramein's response to my blog, I've gone into some detail about that in this post. You say, "he does present a lot of explanation and background for his ideas, seemingly making it clear that he hasn't just made it all up himself for a charlatan's agenda".

Yes, there's a lot of stuff there. My question is: to what extent does it actually address any of the criticisms that I've made, and to what extent is it a piece of public relations consisting of rhetoric and irrelevant scientific padding?

Physics is the honest and careful investigation of the nature of physical reality. It relies on evidence, reasoning and clarity. A "Manifesto", on the other hand, is a statement of belief, a credo, a rallying cry to unify the troops and get them on side in the face of opposition. It is not science. It is politics. Haramein would make a good politician. Better than me. He is good at persuading people to back him and do his work for him, good at presenting his image so that (to some people) he looks very reasonable and progressive and revolutionary, and his opponents look unreasonable and 'reactionary' and unpleasant. I'm not very good at that, and I wouldn't want to compete with him over the loyalty of his followers. It wouldn't go well for me.

Luckily, I'm not interested in that, I'm interested in whether or not he's a fraud. I've presented masses of very specific evidence against his claims - there's plenty to choose from and examine. The question of whether Haramein's response addresses the criticisms, to me, is a very simple one, and I'll put it to you exactly as I put it originally on my blog as soon as I read his response:

"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.

"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."

So, lichencomputer, if you believe he has addressed even one of my criticisms so as to show it to be untrue, please say which one and what he has said that undermines it.

I'm assuming you agree that it's important to focus on the content of what he's said, not just a vague sense of how it 'seems'.

Nobody has come forward to defend any of his ideas from any kind of scientific perspective in the 16 months since I first posted on the subject, despite the hundreds of thousands of visitors I've had at this site, and the many hundreds of comments. He is, as I claim, a fraud.

Bob said...

3. 'He should be stopped'

You say "it seems clear that you think he should be stopped, exposed as a fraud, as though he has nasty, greedy intentions"

Let me be clear. I've never said I think he should be stopped. My blog is to shed some light on what he is doing, and on his scientific claims, which are misleading, idiotic and pretentious. I don't mind him spouting his opinions to whoever he likes. All I want is for anyone who is actually wondering whether or not there's any truth in his claims to be able to get an informed, thoughtful, honest perspective on his work, and to be free to question it and discuss it with others.

He has been exposed as a fraud, so far as I'm concerned. That wasn't difficult. It's not as if it wasn't blatantly obvious to anyone with any understanding of science before I ever posted anything. (It's really obvious. People who haven't seriously explored scientific theories underestimate how ridiculous his ideas actually are.)

As I've said here, I admit that I don't know his intentions. If he's in it for the fame and the money, he's going about it exactly the right way - cultivating his image and his brand and his fanbase, rather than his understanding or his ability to acknowledge criticism. If not, then he is a seriously deluded man.

It's possible that he may be just as vulnerable to believing the fans that he surrounds himself with, who all appear to believe he's the next Einstein, as they were to believing his silly theories. These things can happen.

You say "his ideas are not original enough to allow the accusation "he made it all up" to be entirely valid." I agree. He didn't make it all up. He's collected a whole load of half-digested and mostly misunderstood scientific concepts, most of which he routinely presents as if they're his own ideas, and he makes stuff up on top of that. I've given plenty of examples of him misunderstanding basic physics.

If, as you say, you don't have the background to assess those, all I can suggest is that you find someone you trust who does have the background, and discuss it with them. They're all open to debate on these pages.

Bob said...

4. A Renaissance?

You said "Always, science has sought to be the mechanism for describing the world as we see it, so what about when many people begin to understand the world entirely differently from those who described it before? What I mean is, Nassim's geometric model of a 64-tetrahedron fractal matrix guiding the mechanisms of formation is one among many in common."

(I'm intrigued to know what you think his 64-tetrahedron fractal matrix - if that even means anything - has to do with anything being proposed by anyone remotely sensible as a basis for looking at the vacuum…)

Of course we want different understandings! Let's describe the world in new ways. Very definitely.

And this is the what Haramein misuses as he dishes out his prejudice against 'the mainstream'. Why does he do this? Because nobody in science takes him seriously. What option does he have other than finding some way of discrediting the whole of science! How can he do this? Easy - by exploiting and amplifying the public's existing prejudices against science.

Again, it's rhetoric. It's ugly stuff. Come back to content, and find me evidence or reasoning to support anything specific that he's claimed as a contribution to science. If there is none (and believe me, there really is none), then it is not the fault of 'the mainstream'. So let's put that firmly to rest.

I'm not saying everything in mainstream science is fine and dandy. Good science relies on interaction between proponents of ideas, synergistic development of new ways of thinking, and creative responses to valid criticism. In practice it isn't always achieved, because human beings are human beings. Brilliant new thinkers are often overlooked for a period, and even ridiculed by some quarters.

But honestly, even in the darkest days of history, never mind in this era of rapid internet publication and response, do you really think you can find any example of a brilliant thinker who was unanimously ignored or ridiculed for well over a decade by the whole of the scientific establishment throughout the world? Seriously?

He's ignored because he's ignorant, and he's ridiculed because he's ridiculous. It's very simple.

If there's to be any change in science, any renaissance of a new way of thinking, you can be absolutely sure that it will not come at the expense of honesty and integrity.

Carl Sagan said this of science: "Its only sacred truth is that there is no sacred truth. All assumptions must be critically examined. Whatever is inconsistent with the facts, no matter how fond of it we are, must be discarded or revised."

If any renaissance is to take place in science, it will not do so at the expense of this vision. That would not just be a betrayal of scientific values. It would be simply idiotic.

Bob said...

5. Conclusion

A comment in 5 chapters! Mental. :)

Thanks for your thoughts again, lichencomputer, and I hope you and others will continue to discuss these things, in as much detail as you wish. Perhaps we can continue in smaller chunks, one thing at a time.

One last point though. And this applies not just to Haramein but to anyone claiming to have a revolutionary scientific paradigm.

It may be that you are not scientifically inclined, and wish to focus on other things. That is fair enough. I don't have much to say about any other things here, and none of my criticisms relate to anything other than a carefully considered demolition of his scientific pretentions, and the implications of this for his claims to be doing physics.

Whether or not you understand (or have any interest in) the details, and whether or not you like Haramein or any of his ideas, surely the fact that his scientific pretenses can be unravelled so thoroughly tells you something about the man's character and his integrity, and his skill in manipulating people's views of him?

Surely it suggests something about whether or not he and people like him are worthy of trust.

That, of course, is not for me to decide. But I can try to put my case as clearly and honestly as possible. You are welcome to let me know what there is to disagree with.

Anonymous said...

I've only read a portion of the comments, so please excuse if this post duplicates. Philosophy breeds guru figures, who claim to see things that others cannot, about subjective aspects of life. Problem is that it's difficult to fault what the guru says. Science, OTOH, does not have gurus; it may have "heroes", but not one person from which all truth comes. In science, one person puts forward a theory, but if it does not interface with the current paradigm, or it's just not its time to come to the forefront, then that person, like his critics typically move on to other theories. Science is about dialog between peers, and in the process many more theories get discarded than are accepted. When a theorist (and anyone, including all of the Harameins of the world may become a theorist) cannot effectively answer even his gentle critics, he, like others playing the scientist game, professionally or otherwise, need to go back to the drawing board. I don't think there's a single example in science where one person has been the source of all knowledge in any particular field, and although having a bunch of lay followers gives one some sort of celebrity status, that's not part of science.
signed: ScienceGraduate

lichencomputer said...

I had clicked on the bookmark for this page by accident just now, after moping away a week or two ago when I thought my post had been sucked up into the void via some ridiculous tetrahedral structure. That was disappointing - I liked my post. So I'm glad that it reappeared and that you thoughtfully responded, Bob. I like the attention!

I would like to do a little investigating and see if I can find a way to contribute to the dialogue that your response has opened up. My lack of scientific background is not lack of interest ... but it may take me some time, and it may even fall by the wayside again, as I tend to get intensely fascinated by any new fun within earshot, like a kid at the weird stuff fair.

One point I can easily agree on is that NH does a terribly effective and irritating job at putting his name and character into everything he does, trumpeting himself, at least prematurely and arrogantly, at worst entirely misguidedly, as a new Einstein and the Man With All The Answers Who Can Show Us The Way. It's getting weird now. Theres a new DVD that seems a bit fluffy, and the trailer for it bothers me. I wonder if he is trying to use public affection to psychically protect himself from dark forces he perceives, but I'm sure that if I described that aspect of his character inaccurately he would be very bothered, so I will stop there.

Peace to all, and I hope to return soon enough with some interesting information. It won't likely prove anything as far as Nassim's stuff goes, but at best it may validate some of the points of 'his' theory in the context of observable examples.

Tom said...

Just to correct a statement above, the paper has been peer reviewed and published in American Institute of Physics journal database.

N. Haramein, The Schwarzschild Proton, AIP CP 1303, ISBN 978-0-7354-0858-6, pp. 95-100, December 2010.

That’s the link:

Jonathan Shock said...

One should note that the above is a conference proceedings.

Bob said...

Thank you Jonathan.

Indeed. What Tom posted above is absolutely false. Haramein's work has never been published in any scientific journal, AIP or otherwise.

Journals are where scientists publish their work if it has been recognised as having validity or any potential by scientists.

Haramein's paper was published in conference proceedings. Which are collections of records of what took place at conference. They are not refereed at all. AIP press will publish the proceedings of your conference if you pay them to.

For anyone who is curious as to how he comes to be able to use the term "peer-reviewed", despite never having passed any academic refereeing procedure in his life, can be found in this note.

Anonymous said...

Bob, you seem to fail to understand very simple things. First of all, you think too much of mass as of weight relative to humans on Earth, but you probably know the weight equals Mass MULTIPLIED by Force, 1 kg on Earth weights 9.8 newtons relative to Earth, but will have a much lower mass on Mars. And speaking about Newton, I am sure you are also aware gravity decays in a quadratic rate, and vice versa - increases exponential at smaller scales. Now, as little mass as a proton might have relative to you or men, humans on Earth, imagine two such particles unimaginably close to each other, orbiting their barycenter at luminal speed - AT THIS SCALE, there will be PLENTY OF FORCE relative to those particles, it is not that much of a stretch of both reason and imagination to realize on that scale, the relative mass will be tremendously big.

The same basic misunderstanding applies to your point on radiation - you say it has enough radiation to power 60 000 homes. You probably know that radiation decays just like gravity in a quadratic fashion. Keeping the small scale of a proton in mind, it shouldn't be that hard to calculate the amount of energy that reaches our macroscopic world. There are many particles, so energetic they pass through the entire planet without a hitch - amazingly without killing anyone, again, even thou they posses immense energy potential it is on a scale that can hardly affect us, entities of the macro universe.

Believe it or not, you are also wrong on "Stability of interaction between protons" - your assumption arrives from an equation from a different theory. Haramein proposes a different model, which is incompatible with GR, and it is not really an adequate thing to process his theory through GR. You could easily deny that Earth orbits around the sun, just because the previous and untrue theory stated the entire universe revolves around Earth in a 100% illogical way. As you may or may not know, GR fails quantization completely, because all in all, GR is a moronically simplistic and minimalistic view of the universe, and as such is untrue and creates a gap between classical and quantum even the brightest minds of science couldn't fill to this very day. And it is not like there are two sets of laws for the micro and the macro cosmos, the gap between GR and QM is BECAUSE GR is a product of going the wrong way, logically distancing from a unified theory that can encapsulate classical and quantum mechanics in a simple and elegant way. Believe it or not, but if you go back to Maxwell before his equations were vectorized and simplified, you can build up on Maxwel's physics and even quantize it successfully, because Maxwell was one of the last, if not THE last physicist to be on the right path, unfortunately peer pressure caused him to sway off this path, ultimately leading to GR, which is plainly wrong, not in its details but at its very foundations. I mean not mathematically wrong, but conceptually wrong, NOT accounting for the very base Maxwell and prior great minds built science onto...

I could go on and explain how you are wrong on 99% of your points, and don't get me wrong, Haramein has his mistakes as well, but I doubt there will be any use of further explaining since your behavior patterns match one that is unlikely to appreciate anything but the mainstream.

Take care and for your own sake, get outside the box your mind is trapped in.

J. C.

Bob said...

Hi J. C.

"I am sure you are also aware gravity decays in a quadratic rate, and vice versa - increases exponential at smaller scales." - I've never seen any evidence or reasonable suggestion that gravity increases exponentially at scales around the size of the proton, and I doubt you have either. But feel free to provide a reference.

"You probably know that radiation decays just like gravity in a quadratic fashion. Keeping the small scale of a proton in mind, it shouldn't be that hard to calculate the amount of energy that reaches our macroscopic world." - Wrong again. The energy radiated does not decay in a quadratic fashion. It is the intensity, or radiation incident per unit area, that decays. Energy is conserved. As it radiates, it spreads over a larger area.

"Haramein proposes a different model, which is incompatible with GR, and it is not really an adequate thing to process his theory through GR" - True. My comment was "Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which is the only theory we have that predicts and describes black holes. If we deny this theory as well, then what is a black hole? There won't be any such thing."

People don't just invent black holes for no reason. That would be madness. If Haramein isn't using the clear imperative for existence that GR provides, what is he doing? Making them up himself because he likes them? (Hint: it's yes.)

Also, no observation has ever been made which contradicts general relativity or hints at any departure from it; and as you're no doubt aware, quantum interactions at scales down to far smaller than the size of a proton have been examined in astonishing detail.

If you were wanting to point out that this particular discrepancy is not between Haramein and observation, but between Haramein's idea and one of the two most powerful and reliable scientific theories in the history of the world, then that is true.

Er… ok, cliché time… apparently General Relativity is "moronic" and "plainly wrong", Maxwell's equations were made "conceptually wrong" by peer pressure, I need to think "outside the box"…

So if we can leave aside all the vague unjustifiable accusations, can you say what, specifically are you telling me I'm getting wrong, and why? Home in on one thing and pull it apart. Let's have a focused discussion on it. I don't want to be saying things that are incorrect, and I don't want to disregard any ideas that are "outside the box" if there is actually any reasons in their favour.

If Maxwell (who died in 1879) was the "last physicist on the right path" then I guess all the technological developments of the last 132 years didn't really happen. But let's not let that stop us getting to the truth! If your quill-penned and wax-sealed letter of response take a few weeks to be shipped across the Atlantic, I can wait…

Anonymous said...

1 - if gravity decreases exponentially with the increase of distance, it also increases exponentially with the decrease of distance. You want reference to common sense, or to prove division is opposite to multiplication?

2 - English is not native to me, I may have put it wrongly, but your correction is exactly what I had in mind. As immense as this radiation may be, it will diminish to negligible levels before it even leaves the boundary of atomic radius. After all, you should know how small an atomic nuclei is compared to the atom...

3 - In GR, the black hole is very different from Haramein's concept of a black WHOLE, black holes are unique to GR just like black WHOLES are unique to Haramein's theory, and you cannot really conform a ... dare I say "Haramenian" black WHOLE to equations of Relativistic black HOLE and expect it to conform...

There were others which continued on the right path after Maxwell, but their theories never became mainstream, and I bet you will imply I swing towards new age bullcrap by mentioning the name Tesla, but it is an indisputable truth almost everything we have today is due to Tesla, from world scale electrical network, through radio communications, he even invented logic elements which make up each and every chip on the planet way before they were possible to create, x-rays, gas discharge photon emission, which eventually led to lasers, x-rays, robotics and so on - ALL THIS Tesla did while not only denying but RIDICULING Einstein and his baloney.

I really fail to see the technological development you speak of - the only major discover that came the last few decades was carbon nanotubes, which were ACCIDENTALLY (re)discovered, and also surprisingly or not, found in Damascus steel, manufactured like 1000 years ago, in a technology that somehow got lost.

People have made progress for thousands of years before science was even a discipline, 99.99% of the technology that is being made today requires nothing more than Maxwellian physics, heck, most of it will probably do just fine with Newtonian, so by no means can you attribute the natural evolution of technology to the scientific mainstream being correct. After all, if GR and its development was true, it wouldn't fail on quantum mechanics. As you probably know, QM is totally NOT understood by anyone, it has only been verified experimentally, which led to the so called QM predictions, which should ring a bell - "prediction" has no place in the scientific community, it is spirit seeing prophets that predict, it is religious nuts that predict - the right way for science is to know, and yet no scientist even cares about the mechanics of QM, they all accept its predictions without understanding it, something that too has no place in science and should only be in the realm of theology. It is because mainstream physics is wrong that scientist accept QM as a dogma, because believe it or not, QM is utterly simple and straightforward to understand, it is laughable that science is still puzzled with it after over 70 years of research, but that is possible only because mainstream scientists look at QM through the prism of a wrong classical physics. QM is so simple even a child can get it, but if this child becomes a mainstream scientist - odds are it will never get it. It is just like with swimming, every child is able to swim at birth, and yet so many people "manage" to drown later on in life.

And BTW, you accuse me of using cliches, but the fact of the matter is even when I use terms you might consider cliche, I actually put meaning behind, and the fact you perceive them as cliches automatically is you cliched prejudice on its own, just like much of your arguments I've heard over and over again for like 10 years already.

J. C.

Bob said...

1. It does neither. What in heaven are you talking about?

2. No it will not. If 455 MJ of energy are produced every second, 455 MJ will be emitted every second, which is the output of an entire nuclear power station. It doesn't matter how you look at it or how far you get from it, it's still the output of an entire nuclear power station.

3. Of course Haramein's black holes don't conform to any reasonable theory. He just made them up without regard to anything in the real world. It's a bedtime story theory.

As for the rest of your comment - I asked for evidence, reasoning and references; you're giving empty claims and unjustifiable opinions and conspiracy fairy-tales.

Why do people who've heard some stories but never bothered to understand any physics feel the need to spout opinionated bullshit about it?

What is it about physics that makes so many utter blithering idiots believe that they understand it better than the world's most devoted and brilliant physicists?

Do other subjects get this too?

Do carry on JC. Don't let me put you off...

Anonymous said...

You fail to understand how the force of gravity decreases with distance and vice versa? The "Inverse-square law" doesn't ring a bell? Are you sure you know anything about basic physics at all?

Oh my, I see my posts were a waste of time, not surprising at all you did not comment how was Tesla able to invent almost everything we have today without writing tons of equations and while ridiculing those who did write all the equations which brought science to state of scientism it is in today, with blind fanaticism, strong enough to keep people like you from understanding the most basic of concepts just because they do not conform to what people, who obey "predictions" without understanding them have to say. I will follow my way and you - yours, just remember the fact the masses walk a path doesn't make it the right one. Often what people conceive as walking is actually "being pushed" - but one who never walked on his own cannot tell the difference.

Good Luck
J. C.

Bob said...

The inverse square law is not exponential. Why are you insisting on this garbage if you don't know the difference?

"how was Tesla able to invent almost everything we have today" - er... he didn't


Jonathan Shock said...

Hi Anonymous, I think that the comment was not meant to say that Tesla was not a prolific and important inventor, merely that the statement that he'd invented almost everything we have today isn't quite true. Certainly his inventions have an enormous impact on us, but it was the specific claim that was being disputed, not that he wasn't hugely important.

I echo the previous comment about inverse square versus exponential being a very important difference. Bob is, quite rightly, saying that if you wish to disagree with his scientific analysis you have to be very specific about the claims you make - this is what makes science different from other forms of argument - precision is key, and language can confuse if we don't get it just right.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 313   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

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