Tuesday, June 08, 2010

What's so misleading about Nassim Haramein?

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

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

Traducción al español y la discusión aquí

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

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

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

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

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

Below are some examples.

[Edit October 2017: it hasn't got any better. 2017 update here.]

1. The hype and the Schwarzschild Proton

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

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

Here's one example:

a. The force between protons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Misunderstanding basic physics

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

a. The "first law of physics"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. Why the night sky is black

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

c. Peer review

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

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

d. Atoms as mini white wholes / black holes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's some more:

e. Biological cells are black holes too

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In fact that's what event horizon means.

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

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

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

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

3. Other examples of basic misunderstandings

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

a. Quantum mechanics and the strong nuclear force

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

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

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

b. The phi spiral

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

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

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

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

True, anyone can make a mistake or four.

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

4. The Resonance Project website

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so it goes on.

b. 'Layman Paper' on the Origin of Spin

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

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

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

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

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

c. Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. A little thought

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 484   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

I indeed think that humans built pyramids, but I admit I cannot imagine how. As a construction project manager, I could not find way to move 200 tons blocks without cranes (like those in front of Sfing) and stock them on top of each other. I cannot even imagine how to move a granite figure of 1000 tons (like that of Ramsey II) using all cranes in my inventory. I won't even mention temples around Giza pyramids that have stone blocks that are not often talked about. Baalbek stone block in excess of 1000 tones is just beyond my imagination of construction worker. Archaeologists say these people did it all without a wheel, pulley, cranes...it is OK, but these guys never took any courses in construction...obvious? JoeThe Mason

Bob said...

There are many thousands of people who devote their lives to investigating ancient buildings and how they were constructed. Do you honestly think that none of them take courses in construction or work closely with expert construction workers? You don't credit them with much intelligence, do you. :)

don said...


thank you for this blog. someone very nice posted one this guy's videos and asked me to watch it. 12 minutes in i realized that the guy is in dreamland. it's sad that people are so easily taken in by this, "the secret", "what the bleep do we know", and other pseudo-psychobabble acid trips. your points are really well made, and his disciples are continuously avoiding them. you've made it pretty easy for the layman to not be fooled.


Anonymous said...

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

This was not his idea LOL. He quotes from Gravitation for those numbers. The number is actually formal infinity, but is reduced below infinity so it can be worked with more easily. Read up on your science dude.

Bob said...

Give me a break. That kind of silliness isn't in Gravitation. Give me the page number if you think it is - I have it right here :-)

The force that holds two protons isn't "formally infinity". In fact it's measurably negative. Two protons don't hold together.

I've explained the issues here.

If you pretend to know what you're talking about when I'm sure you're quite aware that you don't, it's entirely obvious to those who do. It's dishonest, and it immediately makes you into a bit of a joke. Try to grow out of it.

Dimka said...

Bob, thank you very much for a substantial look into it all, I have found many people dismissing Nassim's theory, but with empty words.
What is really inspiring in his talks is the simplicity and an attempt to bring many things together. Not that many scientist do that for the public, and the lack of such truly scientific, yet simple and encompassing talks gives the rise to pseudoscience. Feynman and Sagan did a very good job, but unfortunately they are no longer with us.
Is it possible for you to make an article or even a video presentation that touches the same things that Nassim does. Geometry (the "sacred" part), Vacuum, Nasty infinities, Search for a fundamental particle, etc.
Thank you.

Bob said...

Thanks Dimka.

"Feynman and Sagan did a very good job, but unfortunately they are no longer with us." - There are some great people around now. Try Brian Cox, or Carolyn Porco, or Jim Al Khalili, ... and there are many more.

I can't say much about sacred geometry. What's sacred for you is a personal, individual matter, and something for you alone. All kinds of things have been sacred to other civilisations in the past - that depends which civilisations you choose to study. Despite what some may say, there is no single sacred geometry that is universal. So there's nothing 'cosmic' about it in the scientific sense at all, and nothing mathematical really either. It's a cultural or a personal thing.

If you're interested in the vacuum, I'd recommend Jim Al Khalili's TV documentary "Everything and Nothing" if you can find a copy. He discusses infinities in the vacuum in that documentary, and the geometry of the cosmos, so I think you'd like it.

For infinities, to infinity and beyond is fascinating.

To a mathematician, no infinity is "nasty". To a physicist, an infinity means trouble if it appears in a theory and relates to an observable quantity in the universe.

The reason that's a problem is because physics theories are all about the nature of the observable things around us, and they try to predict or explain why things are the way they are. If your theory says something observable is infinite, but when you look at it you can see it's not infinite, then the theory doesn't work. It really is as simple as that. :-)

There are often conceptual infinities in a physics theory, such as the centre of a black hole, but these don't relate to anything that it's possible to observe. Some people find these deeply troubling - others don't.

There are also many benign, friendly types of infinities that appear regularly in physics, such as co-ordinate singularities. Because mathematicians have been playing with infinities for centuries, we know how to deal with these types without getting into a tangle.

The search for fundamental particles has been going on for over a century now, and is still a strong part of serious research physics all over the world, so again there are many great talks and articles and videos on these. If you'd like to know more, a good place to start is to have a browse through John Butterworth's blog.

There's plenty of inspiring and curious stuff out there.
Have fun :-)

Anonymous said...

haramein said in one of his speeches that if you divide a particle to infinity only to find smaller and smaller particle than one can conclude that the mass of the initial particle would be infinite and therefore he conclude everything would be a black hole. this is not true at all, it is just another version of Zenon paradox which is easily explained by realizing that an infinitely sum of fractional terms ,e.g 1/2+1/4+... is a finite number related in this case to the initial mass of the particle. and this is only one case of how math and physics can be wrong applied. We all did ( or stiil do) miscalculations in schools and that is why education is so valuable!

Anonymous said...

"new material which solves the equation that proves – literally, mathematically proves – that every single atom you're made of is a mini black hole."

Or does he just mean a singularity.

and why is the universal expansion accelerating?

Bob said...

Whether he means black hole or singularity hardly matters - he doesn't know what either of the terms mean.

Why is universal expansion accelerating? That's a big question. I don't think anyone can honestly tell you they know.

The observations fit perfectly with Einstein's field equations of general relativity if the vacuum is considered to have energy - a very tiny, positive energy. A positive vacuum energy causes space to grow exponentially, which fits what we see.

So most people will tell you that it's accelerating because the vacuum has a tiny positive energy.

But why does it? Nobody knows.

Laurynas Tamosauskas said...

Does he say anything new to you that you could agree as a true discovery?

Bob said...

He's just says whatever enters his head. It doesn't bear any resemblance to the physical world we see. None of it is research, it's just stories based on popular science books. So no, nothing resembling a discovery at all.

Imagine a guy telling stories about Australia who's seen a couple of books and can do a half-decent accent but has never been anywhere near it. It's really really obvious to anyone who's familiar with the place. Can you imagine someone like that claiming to have discovered anywhere new?

Anonymous said...

Maybe "Ultimate L" will shed some light on this.

Bob said...

Why in hell would some abstract set theory shed any light on an already transparent pile of crap that some guy invented for no reason and which is blatantly wrong?

Do you also think category theory will help shed light on zombies?

Pretentious idiot :-)

I think I think ergo I think I am said...

Its a good thing that an "understanding" of physics or any "science" isn't necessary for my brain to beat my heart or grow my hair or expand and contract my lungs to breath. All science and any attempt to "understand" what already IS will always fall short. All measurements are inventions of the mind. I've never seen an inch or a centimeter lying abandoned on the ground. I've never seen a stray mile wandering the fields as a I drove by. I've never felt a minute or hour outside of someone who decided to divide the ever present moment into bits. I do appreciate your blog BOB as i'm sure NH is a quack within the context of physics. And you point that out very well. He does take advantage of the gullibility of those seeking answers. But he is a great entertainer and i'm sure that's all he can be accredited with. It seems like science is an entertaining way of looking at things too. But its all made up. What is IS before science. It divides an undivided existence and then builds things with the parts it has cut from the whole. And yes its provided humanity with all sorts of entertaining and useful things. But meh, its not for me so I'll leave it at that. THanks for having this blog and sorry for venturing away from the point of this blog. For some reasong my fingers started typing...

Bob said...

Thanks for your comment.

I've never understood why people who have little understanding of science feel the need to give their opinions on its flaws and shortfalls. I mean, if you don't know what it's about, you don't know what it's about.

And if you don't know what it's about, then you don't know whether or not it's profound and beautiful and meaningful. Why not just say you don't know and leave it there?

I think one of the main point of science is to help us stop pretending we know about things we don't know about. As Feynman said "science is what we do to keep from lying to ourselves." Unless we can do that, we haven't a chance of really knowing anything about the wonderful universe we find ourselves in.

Bob said...

As I've said many times, giving dismissive opinions on things you don't understand is always pretentious and always prejudiced.

The internet is like a breeding ground for pretentiousness and prejudice. It's pretty disturbing. How about self-awareness, honesty? How about having the imagination to appreciate that the great endeavours of humankind are probably so much more awesome than the little bit that you can see?

Reality is always bigger than your current experience. Don't try to tell the world it's as small as the piece you can see - that's just wrong, in so many ways.

Anonymous said...

"Appreciate the endeavors of mankind." There's a big problem with science right there Bob. I beleive mankind was put here to advance itself. Not to sit around and pat each other on the back and receive accolades and awards. While it's important to recognize those individuals who make important contributions, it shouldn't be it's main purpose, which (sadly) is the state of the scientific community. Also why would you demean my knowledge of QM and then remove my post when I don't even use profanity or even get mad like you do? Please don't make belittling comments and then erase the responses you don't like so nobody thinks you're an idiot. If you continue these actions then you are no worse then the person you're trying to debunk. See the irony? You probably don't...lol.
Also, I'm not a Haramein fan. I've been looking diligently into the reason's people for accepting his claims. The more I search the more I seem to think that he may be on to something. I try to look past his philosophies and his "hippie bullshit" (very scientific by the way) and balance...blah, blah, blah, but there's something that seems right about it.
I don't want to hear a supposed scientific rebuttle when you beleive in Hawking Radation...lol. I've done my homework and I've yet to find a physicist who would put Hawking on their top 20 list of influential physicist's of the 20th century.
As I understand it, just by the fact that you have this neadrethalic thinking blog up and running should be enough to help Haramein advance his cause. (balance) Good job on letting the world know about this witch doctor!!

Bob said...

Hello again.

I deleted your comments because they were silly and irrelevant, because you were missing the point in every attempt a response to anything I said (as you still are), and because I just got bored of it all. I don't see the point in hosting lengthy discussions with pretentious buffoons who just want to voice their prejudices against this or that aspect of science which they are clueless about.

Let's leave it there. If you need someone else to argue with, you could go and find a surgeon and regale him with some opinionated gabble on how to perform a liver transplant - I'm sure that'd be equally well received.

Gary said...

Dear Bob

Thank you very much for your informative analysis and incredibly patient response to the many comments.

I had never heard of Haramein until I recently met a friend of my daughter who told me that like myself her mother was a layperson interested in physics - she had gone to a conference in Mexico lead by Haramein, whom I'd never heard of. I was rather devastated to read about him and learn that he is a fraud.

Thanks again for your patient de-bunking. This is quite a selfless task and truly an act of charity. Have you considered publishing an article in Skeptical Inquirer? They might find your investigations of interest.

Gary A. Klein
Toronto, Ontario

Bob said...

Thanks Gary.

I haven't considered writing for another site or publication, mainly because I don't have the time to put something new together. But I'd be happy to help if anyone else wanted to do that.

Also I kind of like the fact that so few people treat the guy as if he's a threat. I'm sure he'd prefer it if they did something he could pretend was resistance - anything! - but all he gets is this rather un-notable blog :-) He's a bit of a joke really.

All this self-promotion and pretence, and fans trying to convince everyone he's Einstein, and not even a Wiki page. Gives me faith in the human race after all...

Anonymous said...

Dear Bob,

I know people who have never heard about Leonard Susskind, Edward Witten, Steven Weinberg etc, and, just because of TV, about Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein, but they think (and say very sure of themselves) that Nassim Haramein is a genius.
Obviously, you cannot discuss with them using arguments.
Anyway, I have read with great pleasure your article.
Thanks man.

Anonymous said...

Although I have a university maths and physics background, I enjoy watching Haramein's lectures and find them quite fascinating in a way that the institutionalised perspectives just aren't.

I think that's because most institutionalised researchers are afraid to take risks that can't be successfully peer reviewed. While the peer review process is essential to maintaining scientific rigour in the short term, in the long term it's simply going turn science into a private talking shop, ultimately irrelevant to the rest of humanity.

That's partly the reason why there are so many so called 'pseudo scientists' around these days - it's not only because the internet has given more people a voice.

I don't really mind that he's taking liberties with mathematical rigour or physical principles because modern science is still no closer to understanding the nature of reality than, say, some shamans in the Amazon forest. It's all very subjective (contrary to the way modern science sees itself).

One thing I probably do agree with Bob on is that it's right for the institutions not to 'rubber stamp' Haramein if they don't think he's speaking their language. That basically is the primary function of an institution - to conserve and evolve the it's current body of knowledge. However, I don't think its fair to brand him a charlatan if people (such as me) find their own views on the nature of reality significantly advanced and stimulated by his presentations.

Peter J

Bob said...

Hi Peter J.

So you're saying he can't be a charlatan, because you enjoy listening to him, and because you have the view that modern science is no closer to the nature of reality than shamanism.

Even though he claims to be doing scientific research but has no output that makes any use of science except for a few misunderstood scraps from college science books? And even though the flaws in his reasoning in his papers are so blatant? And even though he relies on a cultivated image of himself as a physicist at the forefront of scientific insight, we shouldn't think of him as a charlatan because what he says accords with your views?

Of course what he says accords with some people's views. That's why he has the popularity he has. If you choose to re-define science to be whatever happens to accord with your views of reality, then sure, he'll be a scientist by your definition.

Likewise if you choose to re-define a potato as someone who talks about tetrahedral vacuums then he's a potato.

As I've said before, the one with the institution to protect, the massive publicity machine, the set of ideas that can't be relinquished or challenged without loss of face, and the fan-dependent revenue stream to manage is surely Haramein.

I've challenged his ideas in this and other posts, and explained why they're false and misleading as best I can. If you'd care to dispute anything specific that I've said, please do.

Anonymous said...

The thing about his perspective that resonates with me is the idea of a black hole being at the centre of every particle. That reality is more about the metaphysical than the physical - this is what is intuitively obvious to most people.

The fact that he's got his sums wrong (if that's the case) is important - especially if you're a physicist trying to take him seriously, but most people do not get their sense of reality from physicists - they develop a highly subjective perspective based on their lives experiences and philosophies which capture their imagination.

Mainstream science is no different in this regard - i.e. seen from a broader perspective, it's more of a cultural pursuit than a 'search for reality', although I accept that the idea of reproducibility has delivered great benefits to society in the field of technology. As a philosophy, however, it occupies the same ground as religion - you've always got to start with some basic assumptions. Also the type of mindset that science attracts today is the same type of mindset that religions attracted in the middle ages - people looking pre-existing framework with 'visible' rules about what defines success and what defines failure.

So I appreciate your work in challenging Haramein's assumptions and equations - I will definitely use it to 'balance up' my views of him, but equally, I often find a lot of the views emanating from mainstream science simply contemptuous, so when one guy out on his own gets attacked for being a 'charlatan' it kind of makes me jump to his defence. There are far more institutionally 'rubber stamped' charlatans around than there are pseudo-scientists.


Anonymous said...

Any more clichés about "institutional science"?

Oh dear, here we are again with the same topics. Someone should state the obvious.
Even if you like to think otherwise, yes, we do know more things about the universe than a shaman in the Amazone. Not that we know everything, of course but please, the examples are too many to mention.
No, science is not a religion, since it doesn't ask you to believe blindly in anything, it does the opposite, actually.
If you believe logic is too a dogmatic attempt to control free thinking, you are the one who's fooling himself. You are mixing philosophy with another thing you do not understand. And you are making it obvious to the rest of us, who, in good will, try to follow your arguments, only they just don't make any sense. And I do enjoy philosophy.

What you are doing is completey demagogic, and the fact that you like it doesn't make it any truer.

Bob said...

Peter, if you believe mainstream science is no different to a highly subjective perspective based on philosophies which catch the imagination, then you're not going to have the first clue about what I'm trying to say.

I'm talking about what science means, not about what you think it means. If you're just going to make words mean whatever you like, then there's not much scope for communication.

Why not find out what science means and then come back?

See if you can spot the difference between the continual development and refinement of conceptual models which faithfully reproduce observations of the physical world and make possible reliable predictions and technologies, and a highly subjective philosophy which catches the imagination which makes possible nothing more than the ability to make money out of people who pay to hear what you say.

Science is not ontological. It has no claim on any ultimate reality. If that's the point you're trying to make, then fair enough. I agree. But that doesn't mean that anyone doing any old subjective gubbins is a scientist.

Science is a method. It's a very effective and very reliable one, and - as Feynman put it - it is what we do to keep from lying to ourselves.

Haramein isn't using it. Haramein is claiming to use it. He is misleading people - and it seems inconceivable that he's not aware that he's misleading people - and that makes him a charlatan. Doesn't it.

Anonymous said...

I don't need to be convinced of the merits of the scientific method, or to understand it's distinctions compared with religion. However it's not being 'demagogic', to consider science as a human persuit from a cultural perspective. In that context I don't agree with you that it 'isnt like a religion'. In fact it very much is in terms of the mindsets it attracts as I already mentioned.

Modern science has a particular perspective on our existence and a language to express it. My point is that it's not 'reality'. It makes reproducible observations within a certain established frame of reference and that's as far as it goes. Whenever the frame of reference moves then old logic becomes obsolete and a new 'science' emerges.

Most of the time throughout history, those boundaries have been advanced by pseudo scientists of the day - not mainstream ones - which is why I think we should all just shut up and let people like Haramein say their piece. If the inconsistencies in the theories (graciously pointed out by observers like Bob here) outweigh the importance of the underlying message then it won't go very far and nobody will need to throw their toys out of the pram.

Anonymous said...


I can't really disagree with your last remark which is fairly balanced to all concerned.

However, I do think that in general principle whereby the language is more powerful than the message whoever you are. Doesn't matter if your name's Galileo, Newton or Faraday. Meanwhile, I'll suspend further judgement till I've educated myself with more detail regarding your criticisms of Haramein.

Bob said...

I know your point is that "it's not 'reality'". So? I don't believe you know what is or isn't 'reality' any more than anyone else, and I'm not making any ontological claims for science anyway.

If you want to have a metaphysical argument about what reality means, find yourself some materialists and argue with them. It's not relevant to what I'm saying about Haramein.

My point is that science means something, he's not doing it, he claims to be doing it, that makes him a pseudoscientist. If that doesn't bother you, then you're free to take no notice of me. It doesn't make anything I've said incorrect or meaningless.

In what way am I not letting Haramein say his piece? Have you lost the plot? The guy can say what he likes. I'm writing a blog, not making international laws. And if you like his stories, you can have them. I'm not getting in your way.

If you think his 'physics' is important, go and use it. Or wait for him or any of his troupe to use it to do things with physical reality. Better still, why not place large bets with all the scientists who are convinced nothing can come from it on account of it being bullshit, and see whether you make your fortune or lose it.

Is science a religion? As Tim Minchin put it, "Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

You might not be able to perceive a meaningful difference here, but I reckon most people can.

Anyway, good luck with your explorations - keep letting go and keep rethinking, it's all worthwhile. I'll promise to do the same.

Anonymous said...

Hi again.
"...However it's not being 'demagogic', to consider science as a human persuit from a cultural perspective"

Of course it's not, but from that point you are jumping to a conclusion that indeed is. The fact that closed minded scientists exist doesn't validate your argument. Science is a method, but human beings follow and work with this method, and human beings are not perfect. Still, both the religion analogy and the shaman idea seem demagogic to me.
And you forgot to point the difference between a pseudoscientist and a scientist that's outside the mainstream. There's a big gap there, because a scientist is still a scientist, a pseudoscientist isn't.

I think it's Richard Dawkins who calls that strategy "Void Worshiping". The fact that we (and science too) can't explain certain things doesn't make our (and science's too) achievements less valid, or even wonderful.

"My point is that it's not 'reality'. It makes reproducible observations within a certain established frame of reference".

Yes, and we call that Model-Depending Realism. If our frame is the one we can share, then let's share it, otherwise we'd be talking about things that have very different meanings for you and me, and we'll never get to understand each other. People like Haramein take advantage of that lack of a reference system in human relations, he takes advantage of people's fears and naivety and makes lots of money out of it. I can't say the guy isn't clever, that's for sure.

Anonymous said...

"I can't say much about sacred geometry. What's sacred for you is a personal, individual matter, and something for you alone. All kinds of things have been sacred to other civilisations in the past - that depends which civilisations you choose to study. Despite what some may say, there is no single sacred geometry that is universal. So there's nothing 'cosmic' about it in the scientific sense at all, and nothing mathematical really either. It's a cultural or a personal thing."

Do you think truth, cause and effect, are subjective and falsifiable ? No wonder we live in such a world when educated people think they are.

Those comments are hilarious. Words words words more words than in a month of Pitchfork's blather. Debunk or prove with mathematics.

Bob said...

"Do you think truth, cause and effect, are subjective and falsifiable ?"


So what are you talking about?

Anonymous said...

And you the Poster, who are you? Show us your Physics Degree.

Nassim Haramein #1!

Anonymous said...

Kudos to you Bob for your stoic defense of reason. I've witnessed people that I've cared about become enamored of Mr Haramein, a man I instinctively distrust but am not well enough educated to be able to provide counterpoints to his propositions (expose the extent of his BS (Belief System?)). Thank you very much for doing that for me.

To anyone who enjoys understandable lectures from passionate educators may I suggest that you give some attention to Professor Brian Cox. He too features in videos on YouTube such as


and a few on BBC iPlayer where available. I promise you, the global blogosphere reading community, that he talks more sense than Haramein.

Granted he won't try to tell you that he's letting you in on some kind of secret knowledge that only he posses but he won't try to flog you DVDs either and you might actually learn something?



Bob said...

Thanks Andy :)

Yes, Brian is very good.

He might not always be the first choice of the folks who feel that rhetoric and tribalism is the best way to promote their brand of Universe. (Hello commenter before Andy!) Some people honestly can't see why physical reality shouldn't be a matter of choice, like politics or music or a football team. The poverty of imagination required for that is remarkable.

Brian Cox has a favourite Mancunian word for people like Haramein, and anyone else who pretends to know what they're talking about when they're clearly clueless. (It begins with n; those who know will know.)

Thanks for the link.

litmusAfreeman said...

Luckily, there are now and again some poeple who come up with new theories.

These may not always be completely right or entirely accurate but they inspire others to think in a different way and that can lead to more new ways to look at things, some of which may be proven or disproven one day. (It's also lucky for those "knowledgable" others who otherwise wouldn't have anything to debunk!

It's much easier to criticise other people's work based on conventional, accepted "wisdom" than to come up with something new, but I find it hard to believe poeple waste so much time argueing with each other on these "blogs". If only we all put as much effort into thinking about the universe in new ways we might break some new ground.

Also, we should bare in mind that when someone is presenting complex ideas in a language other than their native tongue some of their expressions may not be technically accurate, and a non-physicist at that. I think that's why Nassim collaborated with a collegue to write his paper?

Personally I don't care whether this guy Nassim is "wrong" or "right" (I mean who is ever 100% right all the time anyway?) What I found inspiring was his new way of looking at things, which I found facinating. So whether he ends up being partly or completely right or wrong doesn't matter, what matters is that he's shared his views with the world so that others can consider, critique and ponder on them and thereby share knowledge with each other, which helps advance the collective knowledge base.

And don't forget "knowledge" is different to "wisdom"

Please share your new, different, or unique theories with us Bob, whatever they may be...

or perhaps you could share your views on the aspects of NH's work that you (sorry I mean conventional physics books you have read) do consider to be valid? But then if they're new ideas, how would we know if they're valid or not!!??

Well done Bob, you're obviously a very "knowledgable" chap.

Big love and respect to all free thinkers, without them we're doomed to the same old same old...

Bob said...

Hi litmus,

I'm not criticising Haramein's work based on "conventional, accepted wisdom". I'm explaining why it's blatant, flat-out falsehoods.

New ideas are great, but there are very simple and very clear and very unambiguous reasons why Haramein's claims to be doing science is straightforwardly false.

I'm not here to argue. This isn't politics.

New and whacky scientific theories are always revered by at least some quarters of the academic community, but if you say you have a theory that the moon is made of cheese, when it's clearly not, and you claim to be a scientist, then that's just bullshit. This is all I've ever seen Haramein do. It's honestly not a matter of opinion or personal preference. Bullshit is bullshit.

The guy is a fake. If you don't want to believe that, then that's your choice, but isn't it a bit of a silly choice to cling to if you don't understand the subject?

Given that the whole of the academic community and virtually everybody with any science background can see very clearly that he's a fake, you might understand why I haven't "shared my views on the aspects of NH's work that I consider to be valid."

Actually I'm not a "very knowledgeable chap". I'm someone who has worked very hard to question absolutely everything I've been taught, in huge amounts of detail, and comparing it rigorously to the real world, which is what all theories of physics must attempt to describe.

You won't find a single person with any expertise or depth of understanding of modern physics who has just accepted what they've read in books.

So please consider revising your prejudices - you know, go and meet some physicists, see what inspires them and what their values are, get to know them as human beings rather than caricatures in your own head. That kind of thing.

All that aside, you're a free person and nobody will stop you believing what you will.

You're probably a very intelligent person too, and nobody will stop you from embarking on a dedicated course of investigating and questioning in detail the logic of physical theories in great depth if you choose to. I sincerely hope that you will.

As you can see from the hundreds of comments here, there isn't a single person who has provided any scientific reasoning to support anything of Haramein's. People just come to say that I shouldn't criticise it because they like his stories, and they think it look like physics so it should be allowed to be physics.

If you like his stories, then they're all yours, but don't try to pretend they're some new kind of physics when neither you nor anyone else has the tiniest reason for it. It's really silly. Ok?

Anonymous said...

There's nothing wrong with a bit of skepticism for what one might call 'mainstream scientific thought'. Afterall, today's chemotherapy will no doubt be regarded by future generations as no better than the physicians of yesteryear who prescribed tobacco for stress.
However, I have to agree with Bob. Even a very small aquaintance with basic mathematical principles would lead one to conclude that Haramein understands very little. I'd like to ask him how his theory accounts for rates of change.....Lets see his differential equations in all their splendour. Fact is, I very much doubt that he knows what one looks like.
Nonetheless, its a very clever presentation - just think of all the money he's generated from fools. That in itself is enough for me to conclude that the man is no idiot.
Each to their own ey!

Anonymous said...


Fractal Folding of DNA

Bob said...

Um, is that link supposed to be relevant?

There isn't a scientist alive who doesn't think nature is full of fractals. An honest scientist ensures that he/she knows what the word means before using it.

Haramein does not, but he pretends that he does. Hence the title of the blog post. Y'get me?

@previous commenter: thanks for your comment :) I'm sure there are many people who don't mind the fact that some people employ their undeniable talents in selling tall tales to unsuspecting people. It makes the world a more colourful (if more treacherous) place to live. Each to their own indeed.

BB Commentor said...

Sometimes students get cheated out of a science education because instead of including science "the verb" what they learn is science "the noun," i.e. facts about science.

Science "the verb" is a process...

There is no critical thinking in learning science "the noun" nor pseudoscience. For both you just learn "facts", so how do you know if the "facts" are really facts or just sciency sounding fiction?

The difference between the two above and science "the verb" is the process to create facts. Scientist call this process the Scientific Method and it goes something like this:

Let's say that one has a sudden flash of insight and one knows something to be valid based on emotion or intuition, delivered in a dream or made evident by a chance observation... ah, that is the first step of the scientific method!

Many students struggle in school to come up with a hypothesis for the science fair, but an idea derived from insight is an excellent beginning for a hypothesis.

Now, this is only the first step. Next create an experiment to test your "insight", gather data, analyze the data, come to a conclusion, "rinse and repeat"

Now the whole world can have the same "insight" because anyone can reproduce your test and anyone can gather their own data and perhaps come to the same conclusion or one can create a new hypothesis based on their own conclusion and repeat the process.

Eventually, a theory will emerge from this process... and that is science.

If you come across "new" science (NH) and you read on someone's blog being "close-minded" (B) about the "new" science, then it could be that some of these steps may be missing. That should be a red flag that what you are reading is not science "the noun" but pseudoscience instead.

BB Commentor said...

The "you" in the previous post is not directed at you, Bob. It's a generic "you".

BTW, nice work on debunking NH.

Bob said...

Thanks BB.

Science is a verb, yes. The results of doing science are just the results.

A scientist doesn't look at someone else's results and decide whether or not to believe them - they look at the methods, the reasoning, the experiments, the observations of nature that led to the results, and ask deep questions about whether it has to be that way.

Someone with no experience of science might think it works the same as populist politics: candidates present an ideology and others follow it if it suits their preferred way of thinking. They don't realise how superficial that is, because they've never been aware of anything beneath the surface of science - that's the last thing they're likely to be interested in.

Instead, what many people want more than anything is for someone who appears to be an authority to validate their prejudices.

And of course they end up following charismatic nutters instead of engaging with the subject.

It's nothing new. History has always rolled on in spite of the damage they do.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob - Thanks for providing a perfectly concise argument against believing in NH. I recently watched a documentry called "Thrive". It begins with the questioning why the human race is "failing" when species in the animal kingdom are "in abundance". The focus is on "following the money" It points fingers at rich families like JP Morgans, Rockafellers and Rothschilds, saying that these people have far too much wealth and power, they basically own everything and run the world from the shadows. Watching this film during a time when world economic stability is diminishing day by day, dictatorships are collapsing like dominoes, rich get richer and poor get poorer, religion is in decline, and science is more cutting edge than ever, I found it hugely inspiring and thought provoking. I began looking into conspiracy theories, the Illuminati, the "300", "zero-point", Tesla and how he was shut down, Free energy, crop circles, etc. I watched a documentry about Shell that would give you nightmares. Thrive seemed to answer questions. Pointing out that people who own power companies do not want us to have "free energy". Telling us to take our money out of the big banks and put it an independent bank as the number one step for moving forward (which I must say sounds like a good idea).
This got me on to NH - and I watched his hour and a half presentation on YT, and was completely taken in by every word. I am a reasonably intelligent and rather creative musician, not a physics genius. I wanted to believe what he was saying as much as I think he does. However, once presented with the information on your site, I feel really disappointed that he is pretty much full of shit. I am however grateful that I am no longer moving in the same useless direction. You have made me turn a corner, and stopped me from potentially wasting my life chasing some fantasy that will never be possible, and for that - I thank you, and although it's been said before, your patience for dealing with insulting personal attacks is admirable. I think I would have thrown down the keyboard and said to myself "you're just too stupid to understand" and given up. Amazing how you give them the benefit of the doubt because you want them to be "Correct".

Joseph Plecas said...

From the first point:
"How can this be the force holding protons together? You can separate protons from a nucleus by tapping them with a tiny electron in a small accelerator."

Didnt the strong force get its name because the force required to hold the nucleus together is exponentially greater than electromagnetics and gravity?
They couldnt understand how the similar charged particles were able to stick together under the current model so they came up with the strong force as an explanation. To me it sounds like it takes a sh*t load of energy just to hold a nucleus together, so for you to say that its more than the force from a 50 megaton thermonuclear bomb doesnt surprise me. I think of it like, if that bomb went off at a tiny scale inside an atom, the force would still be there. if you scale a force way down, the energy remains but the effects from where its being measured wont.

To understand what nassim is saying, you really have to have an open mind. and it may even be easier to someone who wasnt already educated in physics because they are so conditioned to think things only work they way they were taught.

Bob said...

"Didnt the strong force get its name because the force required to hold the nucleus together is exponentially greater than electromagnetics and gravity?"

The strong force is capable of overwhelming the electrostatic force between charged particles in the nucleus in some circumstances.

In some circumstances.

If you want to know what circumstances, you have to observe it. I know it's a difficult thing for some people to understand, but science is about looking at nature to see what it's like. They don't make shit up and sell it to clueless people. That's not how it works.

Hundreds of thousands of people have been observing the strong force in millions of different ways over the past fifty years or more.

One very straightforward thing that has been observed is that the strong force is not strong enough to hold two protons together. The diproton is not one of the circumstances in which the strong force overwhelms the electrostatic.

Look it up. Find out for yourself. It's not hard to do.

There's nothing "open-minded" about ignoring the very clear evidence that what Haramein is telling you is false. If it's not clear to you, that's probably because you don't work with these things.

I don't need to ask whether you've ever made observations of nuclear processes yourself, and more than I need to ask whether Haramein has.

Go and talk to some nuclear physicists. They're real human beings, not conditioned dogmatists. They spend their lives working hands-on with these things. They're the ones that have to deal with the nature of protons and the strong force every day. They can see very clearly what it's like.

If you're interested, and if you can keep your prejudices at bay, you'll be able to find people who can show you directly. Science is not an exclusive club. Give it a try.

Josh Young said...

I spent the last two hours reading the Nassim posts here and the responses...

A few years ago someone told me they wanted me to see a video and put on one of Nassims videos. I do not know what particular video they showed to me, but I recall watching it with great discomfort.

As that science is a process, a method, I do somewhat resent the notion that there factions of science such as mainstream and academic etc. I suppose more offensive to me is the idea that science is an ontology, something that is implied by many people here. It was addressed that it is not ontological, but I do not think this is well understood by many people.

Nassim uses the idea of the Ontology of science as a form of straw man opponent to oppose and even contrast himself to. He uses it to set himself apart and then allies himself with esoteric and archaic spiritual and philosophical concepts that convey feelings of truth.

Bob, the mathematical proof of his illegitimacy is redundant given his methods of conveying, referencing and portraying his ideas. His work is mostly self promotion, it is not about a paper or a theory, it is about him.

I am sure that some will observe that NH proponents promote the man himself, not his theories or math or anything like that. Not one NH supportive person who has replied to this blogs NH content has addressed his actual theories and claims in an objective way, it has all been about him, his character, etc.

I would love to set up a panel discussion with you and Nassim and some physicists.

From another perspective, I do not think that math and physics are the only things he misinterprets, I question his understanding of archaic and esoteric aspects of things like Tao and Veda. I think he uses these things to target a specific audience.

Nassim is a lot like Carlos Casteneda.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bob,

I just searched for if nassim is a pseudo-scientist or not and found your article. You might know very well why I did search for that. Only because I found himself over confident on everything, without having any experimental evidences of his claims. I just took some of his arguments as just making fun of it, because if you need to carry on with an 8 hour presentation, then everyone will just get bored.

But I would rather say what he is doing is a fundamental field of research and as a computer science graduate, I do work with fractals and I think you need to know much more about fractals before commenting like "Everything cannot be described as Fractal"! This type of comments shows to me that you don't understand what fractals are. The tree fractals look equivalent not exact, because we are yet to find the exact fractal equation the nature follows. I'm glad to know that people like nassim is working on this field, though his over estimation about himself doesn't sound like he is a good researcher. Your claim, "fractals are not applicable in atoms or in the physics of galaxies" also suggests that you need to study this field more. Otherwise people will also point their fingers at you just like you've done to nassim.

Here are my views to the points you've made:

1 a) The force between protons:

nassim says in his lectures, that if the enormous amount of force has a balanced opposite force, then you won't feel it. I think that answers the question raised in this point. If not please correct me, I'm not claiming myself as an expert on Schwarzschild protons.

1 b) trying to prove based on your understanding of the universe is not a bad thing. can you explain why einstein wrote the field equations first before solving them? why didn't he try through the way of reasoning as described by you in this point to get to those equations? he first set his goal to unify instead of trying to analyze the reality and honestly coming into conclusions? Now according to your logics in this point, should I call einstein to be a thinker having a vision which has convinced himself is the truth and then deny the field equations? Why did newton tried to emerge a new branch of math instead of trying with the maths that were available?

please see the next comment for other answers...

Anonymous said...

2 a) The first law of physics just put me in a stupid state for some time as I was just thinking like isn't it the third law of motion? But soon figured out he is talking about "first law of physics" not "first law of motion" which I think he was referring to one of the initial laws of physics that everyone knows. I don't think a person (even if he do not understand modern science) who is talking about the fractal nature of the universe do not know which is the third law of motion. That's not believable, I'm sorry.

2 b) When I heard him saying that's why the night sky is black, I thought he is saying like that just for making fun. But if it's serious, then I also have the same question that you have. That's a good argument from your part. It sounds logical to me.

2 c) completely agree with you in this point. Though it can take time for these type of papers to get acceptance as it claims to change many ideas. But this is one of the reasons why I searched and found your blog :)

2 d) Your references are interesting and I also will agree with you in this point and have similar questions.

e) the frequency isn't huge for a single photon of light, but is huge for a cell membrane which is far more heavier than a photon of light. I think you know that energy needed to move a huge ship is not the same to move a tiny piece of paper :) The questions you raised about event horizon seems to me is logical, but your idea of compressing million million tonnes to make a cell to be a blackhole can be eliminated by using the concepts of fractal geometry, which is nassim is trying to talk about. It's again the result of your misunderstanding of fractal geometry. You are asking if our cells were blackholes then our mass would be enormous. This made myself clear that you don't understand fractals. I would like you to do some more research on this subject. Don't take it otherwise, I would also think like that if i didn't work with fractals. Nasim may be wrong, but what he says about the structure of the blackholes is not ridiculous if you understand fractals.

I will try to answer the other questions later, already it's a big comment. Thanks for this article however, it covers all the questions I had in my mind while viewing nassims lectures.

Bob said...

Hi Anonymous.

"as a computer science graduate, I do work with fractals and I think you need to know much more about fractals before commenting like "Everything cannot be described as Fractal"!"

Fractals are great, and they appear in a great many situations, but it's a straightforwardly false statement to say that everything is a fractal.

Please don't come here making vague claims that if I study more I'd come to the same view as you're putting forward. What you're saying is false. If I study more, it won't make it true.

Sorry, but I'm a little tired of arguing about fractals on here with people who claim to understand them but provide no reasoning for the assertions they make. It is a branch of mathematics, after all. If you're going to lord your superior understanding over me, at least employ some mathematical reasoning.

1 a). He did say thre's a balanced force that opposes it, and I've explained why it's wrong and incompetent here.

1 b). I've never said that Haramein should work from accepted reasoning to arrive at new ideas. He can arrive at them how he likes, but if they contradict physically observable reality in so many ways then they're wrong. That would have applied to Einstein or Newton if he'd contradicted observable reality too and called it physics. He wasn't so stupid.

2 a). Whether he named it correctly or not is beside the point (though it doesn't help his case that he didn't). What matters is that he was claiming to use it, but his conclusion about space contracting has nothing to do with it at all.

2 c). It doesn't take decades. Not these days. Try finding an example of a paper that's been widely hyped online and sold to thousands of non-scientists, but dismissed entirely by the academic scientific community, and then they've changed their minds years later. Some scientists look for radical new ideas. But they will all dismiss what they can see is false. Especially if it is also as pretentious as this. Nobody likes to be duped.

2 e). "your idea of compressing million million tonnes to make a cell to be a blackhole can be eliminated by using the concepts of fractal geometry" - would you like to provide some rational basis for this assertion?

Bob said...

Hi Josh

Thanks for your comment. You're right - the most important thing about science is about the process of science, not the results. I agree with you entirely.

Haramein thoroughly violates the idea of science as a process. He doesn't allow debate on technical points, he doesn't discuss his ideas in public with any academic scientist, his presentation style is to dazzle and make people feel they're in on a secret rather than helping them gain a thorough understanding, and he puts down mainstream science by presenting crude straw man versions of it, as you say.

All of this is far worse than him arriving at wrong (and manifestly stupid) answers for some physics. But the fact that he does arrive at wrong (and manifestly stupid) answers is worth pointing out too. The most striking thing about physics is that it works. If it doesn't work, and he carries on promoting it, most people would accept that there's something very wrong.

But I agree with you – what he's doing is far worse than getting things wrong about physics.

It would be great if more people would write articles explaining what they can see he is doing.

I wrote my posts from the perspective of physics only, really, so in a way it's a shame that people with a wide variety of concerns tend to end up here reading about physics.

I didn't set out to take him down or to provide a thorough investigation into what he does - I set out to write an article about the things that interest me and that I understand.

If there were good articles on non-physics side of what he's doing - the philosophical aspect, the 'cult' aspect, a journalistic investigation into his world and his dealings, his twisting of history, myth and religious ideals, etc., then I'd be happy to provide prominent links to them.

I was very impressed with the Muertos's work in his Thrive Debunked blog, for example. His starting point was the film, but he widened it right out; he contacted me to use some of my stuff, but he added a great deal of his own on the things that concern him.

And you're right of course - many are buying into the character he projects. They may well be uninterested in anything else - in which case, they're probably getting what they pay for. That doesn't bother me much. What bothers me is that people, especially young people, with a genuine fascination in the world are having that fascination abused and are being sold bullshit. That is unforgivable.

Unknown said...

Bob, thank you for the quick reply. I did a small bit of reading on the diproton. If i learned anything, its that i simply cannot comprehend things like that. Or not very quickly at least!

Id like to ask your thoughts on his scaling law graph. You dont mention anything about the validity of it, but if there are no problems with the way he is arranging the data then shouldnt that be quite a profound discovery?

from how i understand it, the resonance of atoms, cells, planets etc. all have a linear relation to one another when graphed as resonance(y) to diameter(x).

maybe i am oversimplifying it, here is his paper, the actual graph is on page 5


Bob said...

Hi 'Unknown'

My thoughts on his scaling law graph are that it is entirely meaningless, and for him to conclude the things he concludes from it is absurd.

The reason all the objects lie on a line is easy to see from Table 1 in the paper. The last column shows a "velocity", which is just the frequency multiplied by the radius for each of the points on the line. That velocity is the speed of the communication process involved in the resonance phenomenon in each case.

For every object, it is the same. 10^10 or 10^11 cm/s. The speed of light. (The actual speed of light lies midway between those numbers.)

That's the reason all the points lie on a straight line. The thing they have in common is the same thing that everything in the Universe has in common: the speed of light.

The line, if you look at it, is just the line of numbers that add to roughly 10 or 11: the base 10 logarithm of the speed of light in cm/s. (Choose any point on the line, take its coordinates and add them up. 10 or 11, every time.)

The things he's plotting aren't even real frequencies, for the most part. The big bang doesn't have a frequency. The Universe doesn't have a frequency. If you look more deeply into where he got those numbers from, at some point something has simply been multiplied by the speed of light and then plotted. It's total artifice.

He shows a similar-looking straight line graph in his Schwartzschild Proton presentations. That has different things on it (guess why? The atom isn't there on that one... it wouldn't have been too convenient if it was!). It's also artifice, and there's also a straightforward basic physics explanation for the points lying in a line. The things he says about that graph, too, are absurd.

I hope that helps – it's hard to answer a physics question without talking about physics. I can explain in any amount of technical detail to someone who has the language, but it wouldn't convince someone who doesn't. All I can do is try to assure you that Haramein's graph is bullshit, and ANY physicist could point that out.

The fact that Rauscher has not done so is one thing I find appalling. But hey. There are bad eggs. I don't know what her reasons were. But ask ANY other.. There is no shortage of contactable physicists at universities all over the world to check these things with.

Chris said...

Bob, you have a clear, rational approach to critique, and the patience of a saint. Hats off.

Haramein is either an idiot, or something far more sinister.

Heratik said...

Thanks Bob, I enjoyed reading this and it helped me get all the garbage from the Nassim's videos out of my head. I am not an expert on physics or anything but its clearly obvious that neither is Nassim. Its clear to anyone who went to school and does a bit of research on there own that he is wrong. I will say its great to see someone thinking out side the box but it would help if they were thinking clearly and based that thinking on some research on the subjects they speak of. Thanks again it isn't easy dealing with all the negativity against yourself but know you are right and at least you thought before you spoke and I respect that. I didnt think you personally attacked anyone you were clear and you offered example of proof which is all Nassim really needs to do but doesn't. Thinking out side the box is great, but trying to pass off fantasy for fact is a waste of time.

Bob said...

Thanks Heratik and Chris, I really appreciate it :)

Anonymous said...

Bob I think you would benefit a lot from LSD, please consider taking it or any other psychedelic in a controlled environment for research purposes. You might learn a thing or two from yourself, the universe and NH. ;)

Atto said...

Anonymous, considering, as you put it, subjective experiences (such as conscience altering drugs) as a source of knowledge of nature is the first step in the wrong direction. Those experiences may tell you things about yourself, but you are not the universe pal, just a tiny part of it.

Oh but you just came here to troll, didn't you? I keep forgetting that, sorry.

Bob said...

"you are not the universe" – great line.

People are in a bad way when they don't realise they're confusing the two :)

Kyle said...

Holy sh*tstorm bobman!
That's a lot of comments.
You seem to be using the term fractal from the purely mathematical definition.
Open Your Mind!
It is more than merely aesthetic.
"as above, so below" is the all encompassing original definition. Storm in a teacup and all that, i shouldn't have to go into it. You get me i'm sure.
The universal pattern is of course the spiral. Everything is a spiral in nature, a phi spiral to be precise. From the pores in your skin to the maelstroms in the ocean up to the galaxies themselves. And it is all one self referencing entity.
Even hydrogen is golden. Planck length x phi = H radii
Did you know that the optimal wavelengths of light for photosynthesis are powers of phi? Even the E8 theories geometry is based in phi.
There simply isn't a way to prove the universe is unified and conscious with your way of thinking.
Your dogma is calcifying your brain.
Mainstream science has failed to explain the cause of gravity, and the cause of life itself. It should be obvious to any being that all comes from one. We should be able to understand that all forces are electromagnetic, even without a unified field theory (still waiting on that too)
Maybe nassim is simply referring to all vortexes as black holes, i dunno man.
And all i care about is results. If he can harness zero point or "free" energy then there's something to his claims. What's important is the principals of nature, not who discovered them first. Personality worship runs rampant in the scientific community.
I wonder if you realize you are the part of that generation that has to die before new ideas will be accepted? You know the quote.
Might i humbly suggest you try some catma?

Bob said...

Whoa! What the shit-for-brains was that?


wendy said...

Kyle, I am a trained scientist and also an avid lover of science. It appears to me that you believe that your attitude is one of openness and freedom fro what you call 'dogma', but I question that.

Your attitudes comes across to me as fairly demeaning towards the many many men and women who have worked over the centuries to carefully build the edifice of knowledge that we have today.

I personally think that, if you feel you have anything serious to say about the world, you need to try to become more like them.

Spend more time actively observing and working hard to understand the world, and less time projecting your own subjective, ego filtered understandings onto them.

Spend time learning and really understanding the work that has gone before, so that you can then really discuss and critique it in a valuable way.

It really is very very arrogant to think that your own opinions are more important than the centuries of dedicated intellectual work performed by your predecessors and by those still alive and working today.

I'll now respond to a couple of your specific points:

"And all i care about is results. If he can harness zero point or "free" energy then there's something to his claims. What's important is the principals of nature, not who discovered them first. "

Yes, I agree with this. But where are these results? Haramein's claims alone do not constitute results - they need to be properly peer reviewed, and then they need to be repeated.

Otherwise I could just run around claiming claim to have invented table-top fusion in my laundry, and you'd all have to just believe me! (Where that would get us, as a society, I'm not sire, but it's no place good!)

The other thing I will respond to now is this one:

"There simply isn't a way to prove the universe is unified and conscious with your way of thinking."

If by 'your way of thinking', you mean the overall approach taken by scientists, mainly over the past few centuries, then, contrary to what you have said, there is an eminently simple way to prove that 'the universe is unified and conscious' with that way of thinking. I will demonstrate:

a) The results of all that science lead us to believe that everything is made out of stuff which interacts dynamically with everything else.

b) We are made out that stuff also, which interacts dynamically with everything else.

c) Sonce this stuff is all constantly interacting dynamically with everything else, the whole universe, in a long term and holistic sense, is unified.

d) We are conscious.

Points a) to d) lead us to

e) We, and other living creatures, are a conscious part of the universe, we are made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe and thus, we are unified with it.

Ergo, the Universe is conscious and unified.

A much shorter and very elegant, poetic way of putting it is to say that 'we are the universes way of looking at itself' :) :) :)

As to the rest of your suggestions - I have no idea why you think that it should be' obvious to any being that all forces are electromagnetic'...actually I can't be bothered responding to the rest, it's all too vague. Clarify what you mean a little and I will respond. If you are really interested in understanding things, in active discussion with others (like an actual scientist), and not just in blowing your own horn.

Go read some of the lives of the great scientists, and then go and look into some of the amazing work being done today. Be humble and interested. Study hard.

Then, if you still disagree, argue all you want!

(BTW, would you like to buy a prototype tabletop fusion device I just invented? It will provide all your power needs for ever, and also save the world. You'd have to be an arrogant sum'bitch not to just believe me! Go on, you know you wanna !!)

Hoffman said...

I was just trying to get high and read about the schwarzchild proton theory and ended up reading the comments for 20 minutes, haha. Now I feel compelled to join in.

I'm no expert besides having taken quantum mechanics a few years back. I read the paper and loved the idea, but it's clearly theoretical and raises questions such as "what the hell is quantum vacuum density". If someone can explain the meaning of this that would be great.

My understanding of his theory in laymans terms seems looks like this:

100% purely dense matter (absolutely no gaps between quarks, I guess) has a particular density (vacuum density?). If that is extrapolated to the size of a proton, the weight of this would be 4.98x10e55 grams. This is obviously ridiculous, which is why he goes on to explain that only 1.76x10e-39 of this needs to be present for his theory to hold (two protons orbiting at c).while the resulting mass of ~8x10e14 grams is still way off base. This is where he left me scratching my head. This is a pretty odd conclusion that he ignores, which allows the rest of the math to look pretty IMO. Thoughts?

Hoffman said...

Did some research, this page was hard to find and is unsourced.


It goes to explain how the initial number is reached. All of it is highly theoretical. As I interpreted the paper to be, 100%. I did not see it as fact. But after hearing more about this dude, perhaps he wants it to be fact... no problem with being passionate I guess.

Hoffman said...

And sorry for rapid-firing comments, but in case you were curious about who wrote the article in the previous comment, it's Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg, who studied under Heisenburg while getting his Ph.D. (like a boss)


Bob said...

Hi Hoffman,

Many quantum field theory articles will happily point out, as Winterberg did, that if you were to (naïvely) assume that the vacuum energy comes from the zero-point energy of an effective field theory up to the Planck scale, then you'd get this ridiculous number, which clearly isn't observed.

What none of them will say (unless they are deluded) is that the vacuum energy is that figure.

It's a way of saying "look, if you use this naïve approach, you get this silly number! So there's clearly more to it than that. Now let's talk about how we can go about investigating it properly."

Haramein could easily come across a number like this by turning to page 1 of a textbook or an article on QFT or quantum gravity or dark energy. He should learn to read page 2 before he gets the wrong idea, though :-)

Adam said...

You're my hero Bob.

Federico Pistono said...

Hey Bob,
I admire your patience. I spent years "debunking" all kinds of pseudoscience (against climate change, pro creationism) that I grew tired of it.

It's nice to see that you still find the time to help people understand science and reason in the face of misinformation.

Keep calm and carry on :)

ed_tate said...

Hi Bob,

His point is simply this: It is not the value of some thing which matters but that which describes it. We have not found an adequate way of describing, or proving things in the first place, since we demand a discretization of some pattern to be produced for it to be believed.

Let us take an algorithm as a basic example. Did you know that the lambda calculus is specified by recursive equations? Did you know that the math which implements the basis for computation itself is based upon recursive equations? Did you know that you can prove mathematical theorems and laws in terms of these recursive equations? Did you know that the foundation of logic in computer science, the science of 'types' of values, is also based upon these recursive equations? Did you know that proving a mathematical equation via a computer uses the same underlying process as that which we use to prove it to ourselves?

How far do you think it is possible to recreate physical reality by programming it?

Your mind is so rigid that when you hear the word fractal, you have a pre-conceived notion of its meaning and an inability to look beyond it. Recursion is the pattern which implements all others. That is what is meant by a fractal universe.

Your lack of imagination is astounding.

Bob said...

"His point is simply this: It is not the value of some thing which matters but that which describes it."

Science is about valuing nature and how it works. Valuing a description above the thing itself is the job of fiction, and it is done splendidly well by fiction writers.

Having an example of a recursion doesn't mean that nature is fractal any more than having an example of a goat means that nature is a goat. And what kind of person tells someone they've never met what their mind is like?

My imagination is pretty active, actually, but I'm talking about science here, and I value my ability to distinguish things that are real from things that I've just made up, and I'm respectful enough to make the effort to keep my end of the discussion to the former.

I do have some sympathy for those who don't have that ability.

az said...

hi and thanks for your sterling efforts bobajob. they certainly help non-mandarin speakers like myself. i see from the dating of posts that the party is almost over. still, i also see a ooupla games unplayed. i’ll start with motivation and get to the science after.

first off, i commend you for your recanting of the “manipulative” accusation. first, the charlatan/quack anaysis is all too glib. i am more inclined to suspect a somewhat beautiful mind (reference to john nash in case of misunderstanding). that would address the question of why anyone would do what he does (answer: if they believe it - note here his reference to “bipolar”). and second, regarding the brand, we shouldn’t assume that nh has total control, or even very much at all. indeed, a beautiful mind is just as if not more likely to be itself the subject of manipulation (recall the nh story, where he is persuaded to the science conference - suggesting the possiblity of a scenario of some cruelty).

on the science, i found the nh observation that beings only have a limted timeframe in which to get off their rock rather insightful. indeed bob, i see you concur insofar as you took the trouble to post on this very subject. i note also that the incredibly unlikely cassini image nh shows of a hexagon at the north pole of saturn is, indeed, real. in the light of which, would you comment on the meaning/verisimilitude/implications of some other aspects of the nh universe narrative?

1) the red spot on jupiter is not moving – you’d expect it’d dissipate, move in latitude
2a) the hyperdimensional tetrahedral dynamics implied in planetary events
or the thesis underlying this (passing on the hyperdimensionality, dynamics and planetary events):
2b) the tetrahedron in a sphere
itself assuming
2bi) the tetrahedron as the most stable structure and the sphere as inherently unstable
2c) the dynamics of the structure of the vacuum

again, appreciation for your efforts.

Bob said...

Hi az. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, or why you're asking me vague questions on subjects that are either unrelated to the subject here or don't actually mean anything.

Do you have any reason to support any of Haramein's scientific claims, or any reason to dispute anything that I've said?

My assertion is that Haramein is a fraud because his scientific claims are entirely bogus, he is demostrably incompetent and he doesn't have anything new to say of any scientific relevance.

My assertion doesn't rely on me having simple answers to every strange phenomenon that you can think of. Haramein is the pretentious one, not me.

All you need to dispute my assertion is provide a single example of him saying something new and sensible about the nature of the universe or matter or space or anything, with the reasoning or evidence behind it, so we can see that he hasn't just made it up.

That's all it takes.

In two and a half years, I've hosted an open forum in which I've encouraged hundreds of people to dispute what I've said, and still nobody has done this. Not a single thing.

Because Haramein doesn't have any followers who are capable of engaging in a rational enquiry that threatens their prejudices.

That's true, isn't it, AZ?

P.S. what is the "nh story" that you're referring to?

msousa said...


Thanks for posting this. I had heard about the Swarzchild paper and it piqued my curiosity. It's obviously garbage.

Thanks for posting this in depth thorough debunking, and thanks for taking one for the team. The crackpots really came out in droves to defend this guy, and just reading some of the comments makes my blood boil. I have no idea how you've taken it so gracefully. I specifically recall the poster by the name of T.Rue... I'm pretty sure he's insane, or not completely situated in this dimension (hardy har)

Keep up the good work,
Michael Sousa

Anonymous said...

Well as far as i am concerned i don t care what people say, not that much at least but very much what they do.

NASSIM HARAMMEIN together with his friends from the resonance project ARE ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN CENSORING VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE! So i don t care any more what he says as long his behaviour and words are at war with each other.

He is as dangerous for searching people as are David Wilcok, Fulford or Kerry Cassidy. Paid and controlled opposition which SEEMS to inform and show the way but actually are nothing more than controlled goons in camouflage.

The good thing is that a guy called David Icke is right with what he said when he predicted that over the time more and more the real face of all people will brought to the surface for everybody to see.

Just imagine Telepathiy would be the normal state of consciousness for all people, liars would lead some very sad lifes, alone and sad.

Cheers, Mike


Bob said...

Yes, he's no friend of free-thinking. He's the head of an dogmatic institution that aggressively promotes and protects its own image in the name of 'science' but has never done a single scientific thing.

I guess some people think that's ok.

MP said...

Dear Bob,

I liked your criticism of Nassin Haremain’s charlatanism…

Could you please use your nice skills to criticize my work. I believe that only through criticism or critique one can progress.

The work is shown in the blog

I have had a very hard time finding a scientist who would make any criticism of my work..:) and that is not fair… If it is bad, it should be easy to find an evident error.

For instance, it is quite disturbing how easily you repeat the current blurb about the expansion of space (space coming out of nowhere) while not coming with a simple explanation like my lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface (a 3d Hypersurface where our Universe is located). Please check the blog, pdfs, books or ask questions on the blog. I will be more than happy to explain anything.

This topology doesn’t require you to create space as you go… explains expansion without dark energy, etc..



Bob said...

Sorry, but I don't see anything of substance there, or even any meaningful claims. What would you like me to comment on?

"I have had a very hard time finding a scientist who would make any criticism of my work" – this could be because it doesn't appear to have any of the characteristics of science. Scientists usually work with and comment on science.

Kyle Ledford said...

As a man of physics I have to say when I hear outrageous theories I tend to tie them to those that are most popular on the fringe of the community.it is in the pursuit of the ideas of those on the fringe that we find new avenues of thought to pursue proofs. such is Einstein and Tesla. many NH theories if tied to theories of m theory or holographic theory are not so fringe. if you tie NH singularity with susskinds holographic information theory they make a decent statement.

Bob said...


Quote: "if you tie NH singularity with susskinds holographic information theory they make a decent statement"

Look, Kyle. Please. When someone pretends (to themselves or others) that they know what they're talking about, when they haven't the first clue what Susskind's holographic information theory implies or is about, it really is very obvious.


Don't do it.

If you went to China and pretended to speak Chinese, they'd just think you were a jerk. Don't do it to physicists.

'Man of physics' indeed.
Twat :)

Unknown said...

"This rigorous testing and attempt to undermine every scientific idea is the part that non-scientists don't see, and I really wish they could. It might not seem very nice, but it's precisely this process that gives real substance to the ideas that science happens to favour at the moment. When things do move on, it's because of this process, not in spite of it."

Maybe you're making his idea stronger by putting it to test then. If it stands after some years, that's precisely what you're doing here. If it doesn't stand, congratulations for being right. But you stated that what you're doing here is a common process. That tells me I can't trust EITHER OF YOU (not just yet!):

1. He has to be put to test and endure.

2. You are compelled to putting him to test (because it's only natural right?) and so many others are and will do so, for it's a part of the process of proving something right.

Punchline: Wait... wait... then wait some more!

Until the guy is dead maybe... which in fact happened to many people in this world (including so called scientists) before having their works recognized.

Nowadays diffusion tends to happen easier and faster for such obvious reasons they are not even worth the mention. New professionals and artists emerge through nonconventional means. It's quite an impact. Maybe the same is bound to happen with Science.

You see… I studied in a class full of Engineers (as one too) at their very first period, some of which trying to discredit a Professor holding a drs degree in Nuclear Physics.

I watched that class, and all I could think of was:

"I'm tired... of questioning. Let's get to the test so we can move on to the next subject."

Bob said...

As you're just re-posting the comment you left on this page, I'm re-posting the reply I gave you there:

I'm not sure what you're talking about – I'm not suggesting anyone put Haramein's ideas to the test. His ideas completely fall apart as soon as you apply any kind of scientific analysis to them. It's entirely clear that they bear no relation to the world we're in.

That's what the posts here are about. You should read them.

Valeria said...

Hi Bob, I applaud you for taking the time to shine a light on Haramein and his theories. It's one thing to say he's a fake and go on a personal rampage, but you went about it in a logical scientific way to help everyone. The truth is golden and you are helping to reveal it or at least open the discussion so the ideas are being questioned and not just blindly believed.

Secondly, I applaud you for patiently answering each person. I like your writing!

Bob said...

Thanks Valeria :)

Anonymous said...

Taken from

The Schwarzschild Proton Paper at the American Institute of Physics!
teknomadics December 4, 2010 0
The Resonance Project and Nassim Haramein are pleased to announce that Haramein’s latest paper, The Schwarzschild Proton, has passed peer review – Hooray! – and is now published at the American Institute of Physics. The link on their site is here, http://scitation.aip.org/proceedings/confproceed/1303.jsp, where you may click on the right hand corner to see the table of contents PDF of the book. The Schwarzschild Proton is on page 95.

Dual Torus model
This paper received a Best Paper Award in the field of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation” at the University of Liège, Belgium during the 9th International Conference CASYS’09 (Computing Anticipatory Systems).

This significant paper marks a new paradigm in the world of quantum theory, as it describes the nuclei of an atoms as a mini black hole, where protons are attracted to each other by gravitation rather than some mysterious undefined “strong force.” This radical new view of the quantum world produces a unification of the forces and appropriately predicts measured values for the nucleon of an atom.

Much more work must be done to complete the picture, yet this simple paper is already producing remarkable results! Visit The Resonance Project’s website to read more about this and other new exciting research!

Nassim's a guy who stepped out of the box STD physics and had the gutz to present his paper and received the above mentioned result.

So Do you still think he'sfull of s##it?

Bob said...

Hi Anonymous.

I responded to the false claim of him being published in a peer-reviewed journal in this note soon after he made his claim. I highlighted it on the two related blog pages.

18 months and 450 comments later, nobody has challenged any of what I wrote there. If you have reason to suggest I'm wrong in any of this, please let me know, and I'll correct it. If not, then I hope you'll pass this on to anyone else who believes there's anything to his claim. Because yes, he is full of shit.

Here's what I said:

Comment by Bob, 1st Jan 2011

The American Institute of Physics has not done or said anything that would give Haramein any legitimacy or his theories any validity.

Haramein's "physics" paper was not judged by the American Institute of Physics. It's not been accepted by a scientific journal – far from it. It was published by AIP as part of a conference proceedings, which is nothing more than a record of what happened at a conference.

As you can see on the AIP conference proceedings site, they will happily publish the proceedings of any conference with a science or engineering theme. The only review their publications team carry out is an editorial one.

The reason Haramein's paper is referred to as "peer reviewed" is because it was chosen as best of one of the categories by people at this particular conference. I can say with confidence that they were not physicists – at least not physicists with any experience or familiarity with the nature of protons or black holes or any of the other subjects Haramein misused in his paper. If you think you have evidence to the contrary, give me names and I'll write to them and ask them what the hell they were thinking.

They were participants at a computing systems conference (the topic was "Computing Anticipatory Systems", a novel branch of systems theory and artificial intelligence). The head of the awarding committee is Daniel Dubois, who founded computing anticipatory systems. He has made clear that he wants to see it used in physics (along with many other disciplines) and has done a little work in that direction. But he is not a physicist. Also Haramein's paper doesn't even attempt to employ anything resembling computing anticipatory systems.

I dread to think what criteria were used to select Haramein's paper, but, having been to a few conferences, I imagine his charismatic and lively style was a refreshing change from many of the presentations there. This is regardless of whether or not, as non-physicists, the "peers" had a clue what he was talking about or how ridiculous it was.

Their job was not to put the paper through a rigorous process of refereeing as would be required for acceptance by a scientific journal. Their job was to choose a paper from the bunch in front of them right there and then.

If you still think his appearance in some obscure conference proceedings gives any validation whatsoever to anything Haramein has said, I'd like to hear that argument! It would have to answer one hell of a lot of very serious questions.

Anonymous said...

So in your mind Nassim is a crackopt, and a fraudster, so why ask the world what they think?

If you are so confident this is the case then call him out, he openly invites any skeptics to poke holes in his theory.

Any way I doubt that anyone here can/has the depth to refute your claims, so what is your point/ agenda?

Bob said...

Hi Anonymous.

I've poked holes in his theory. It's shot full of holes, empty and disintegrated. And I've done it very openly. Have a look, if you're interested. Or don't, if you're protective.

My agenda?

Well, I love seeking the truth, I love people who are genuinely seeking the truth, and I don't like it when I see someone pretending to have the truth and taking advantage of people who are genuinely seeking it.

I've presented some information from a scientific perspective to counter the fake science Haramein presents, in the hope that some people will find it helpful and feel confident to let go of his little fantasy world. If they want to.

And because I also love openness and don't have any desire to tell people what to think, I've encouraged people to discuss, ask questions, and publicly challenge what I've said if they wish to.

Also I genuinely would like to know if I've said anything incorrect or unfair, or if anyone actually does have any reason to believe Haramein knows what he's talking about.

It's a deeply suspicious and malevolent agenda that I have, I'm sure you'll agree. I'm clearly part of some conspiracy that you should be paranoid about, with my open discussion forums and my welcoming of voices that disagree with me. I'm probably bankrolled by aliens.

Be afraid.

Or better still, relax and tell me what's up.

Bob said...

Oh, and whenever I've attempted to discuss anything with Haramein, however respectfully, he's blocked and banned me.

So he may "openly invite" a skeptical response but he certainly doesn't welcome it when he gets one. My challenges were way too close to the bone.

He's welcome to discuss anything here if he wishes. And always has been. I believe this site is now the fourth hit on google.com under his name, so it seems a shame not to have his views here too.

Anonymous said...

Jesus, this post is a magnet for lunatics. And most of the comments are simply ad hominem attacks. If the so-called guru is so right he wouldn't have much trouble refuting the arguments here, now would he?

Bob said...

They're great, aren't they!

Doing Mr Haramein proud. :)

adam brookes said...

"You show me a single scientific organisation that doesn't welcome robust challenges to its ideas."

The APA.

TheQuantumLeap said...

I've read just about everything on this page, comments and all. Much respect for putting this together. It must have taken a lot of time, effort and creativity. I have to say you come off as someone who might know what they are talking about. But are you a quantum physicist?

Also, because recent peer reviewed science, STILL not introduced to classrooms, has shown us that everything we thought of as reality before, was merely perception and rooted in the mind. We now know that EVERYTHING can be subjective. And there is no physical evidence to prove that the reason for this chaos is consciousness, but the evidence is cluing us in on what we have all known all along, but have seem to have forgotten by choice: We are infinite awareness, fragmented collections of consciousnesses that will never be weighted down to physicality. Only the results of it's theorized presence can be detected.

I still think Haramein's a cool guy and is quite innovative, just not goods with words, and for wordy people like you, that won't work for you. Good day!

Anonymous said...

No one tried to argue with you about these issues that you so unambiguously explained because they know that they cannot convince you otherwise. You lack right brain stimulation, this I can easily tell. And you're left brain will come up with any seemingly logical write off for even THIS I'm sure. But true honesty with oneself is quite hard, if you cannot argue BOTH sides.

JohnHopkins said...

You sound like YOU were taken advantage of mentally as a child by someone and are now compensating....Hope I didn't strike to close to the bone.

Bob said...

Hello JohnHopkins.

I've never really understood why someone would choose to invent stories about a person they've never met, and then think it would be insightful to tell them what they're like.

It's hard to think of anything more arrogant, or a more unreliable way of getting a clear perspective on the way things are. It's a pretty grim way to go about life, don't you think?

Hello Anonymous.

You can easily convince me otherwise if you have reasons to. Do you?

If person A tells you that your head has just been chopped off, and person B tells you that it hasn't, do you feel unable to be honest unless you can appreciate both sides? Personally I'd feel more deeply in relationship with the way things really are by dismissing person A and saying person B was correct. I don't see why I'd benefit from believing that I had to argue both sides. Maybe that's just me.

Regarding your "right brian stimulation" theory, I think I covered that in my response to Mr Hopkins. Isn't it better to get to know someone as a human being first, and tell them what you think they're like only later, if you think it will do some good? Makes more sense to me.

I'm a believer in finding out about things, looking carefully into them to try and see what they're like. So many people prefer to just make shit up and blurt it at each other instead. Seems a shame to me. I think they're really missing out.

Bob said...

Hi TheQuantumLeap

Thanks for your supportive comments.

"recent peer reviewed science has shown us that everything we thought of as reality before, was merely perception and rooted in the mind. We now know that EVERYTHING can be subjective."

That's a myth, I'm afraid.

Well, let me put it this way (and I'll try to choose my words carefully):

The purpose of science is to investigate which aspects of reality appear to behave objectively in some way, and to describe that objective behaviour using reliable conceptual models.

We can use those conceptual models to understand and to explain those apparently objective aspects of reality. If they are reliable, then we can use them to predict, to design, to create. If they're reliable then we can trust them with our lives. If they're reliable then we can invest millions or billions of pounds into designs that make use of what we understand and know that they'll deliver.

We use science to make things safe and reliable. That's objective, isn't it?

Clearly not everything is objective, or even appears to be objective. But science is the study of the aspects of reality that behave objectively in some way, and it does seems to be quite a lot of it.

Think of a smartphone, which relies on profound quantum processes, complex nano-engineering and an understanding of the curvature of spacetime (for the GPS). We can take one of these smartphones from a production line that makes a million identical smartphones, and we know it will perform an absurd number of almost inconceivably complex tasks, reliably and objectively (with some probability determined by the margins of sloppiness in the production process).

The people who study the apparently objective ways in which nature operates are the people who make things possible. They are the people who will shape the future, who will generate new technology, and who will be relied on. If you want to use the word innovative, then these people are innovative.

The people who choose to adopt the view that everything is subjective and that all is consciousness won't do any of those things. They won't innovate anything except new ways of telling stories, and nobody will be able to rely on them for anything apart from a sense of community from a common ground of uplifting make-believe.

Now I love a good story and a sense of community, and I hope you do too. But my point is that I think you may be deeply underestimating the profundity of the objectivity that science has actually revealed. If that's because you don't care about it, then fair enough, but if you are genuinely interested and you're willing to let go of this stance you've adopted, then there's so much beauty out there to discover. It's so much more wonderful and complex and fabulous than some 'cool guy' and his likeable bullshit. It really is.

And what's more, you can still develop awareness, integrate your consciousness, connect deeply with the interconnectedness of all things and dwell on whatever inner or outer source of vitality inspires you, with or without insight into scientific understanding. If more scientists did this, there would be better science. I have no doubt about that.

Good luck.

And yes, if you have any questions on quantum physics, that is indeed my thing. Well guessed.

TheQuantumLeap said...

In regards to you're last reply:

I understanding your passion for what you believe is right, because I have that same passion for what you may believe is wrong. And I wouldn't have it any other way! Without each other, we may miss crucial information, or may go on believing things that may not have any relation to the whole picture. I appreciate people like you and I appreciate people like me. two sides of the same coin :)

Rhetoric is the philosopher's sport.

Good day, sir.

Bob said...

Then your passion is for fiction.

As I said, there's nothing wrong with that, so long as you don't rely on it for anything in relation to the physical world.

It's a bit silly pretending to appreciate people like me and then ignoring everything I've said. But then, people who believe in fiction speak in fiction too, so what can you do.

(Rhetoric: yes, if you rely on that, you're running on empty. I'd never do that and never have.)

observer said...


Sometimes mainstream science is narrow-minded. Sometimes scientific theorists try to break everything down into the material world. Scientists may deny the existence of a “soul” because such things can’t be proven. And this can be frustrating when you perceive that there is something much more "real" than the "material world." But that doesn’t mean all of science is like this, or that this view doesn’t have value.

You may share my observation, for example, that this “reality” isn’t actually all that different from a dream. When asleep and dreaming I’m some character in a dream, I’m 100% convinced that character is me. That a friend in the dream is a separate person. And the world we interact in is the “real world.” And then upon waking up, my mind shifts and says “aha! Wait! That wasn’t reality. That was all just an expression of my consciousness! That character I dreamt was me wasn’t the ‘real me’ and the friend I dreamt of was not actually another person—there was no seperation, no other. It was all one. All me.”

And, just as my mind believed the dream was reality, once I wake up, I believe this mode of consciousness is reality. And now that it seems to me that this mechanism of determing reality and “self” is “flawed,” this “mainstream reality” doesn’t appear any more genuine than the dream I had. So once again, I could say that consciousness is the “unified field.”

I’m saying this so if you have a simliar perception, you won’t assume I don’t understand your point of view. There are many scientists that don’t “get” this. But be aware. There are also many scientists who DO understand/perceive this aspect of reality/consciousness.

And, to get to my point: The reverse is also true. Just because someone may perceive the dreamlike/non-dual nature of reality, does NOT mean they’re a good scientist. Do I perceive that the unified field is consciousness? Sure. Can I prove it? Not that I know of. In fact, I’m open to the idea that I’m wrong. Deluded. Or haven’t tested my perceptions well enough.

I have looked at Harameins “Black Whole” video. I watched the first hour, kind of excited to hear about his theory. But towards the end, began to feel suspicious. He starts to make suggestions about aliens from Orion’s belt building the pyramids at Giza and a few other bold claims. He makes big leaps in his logic. And worse, as I began to investigate his claims, it seemed increasingly clear that he would ignore evidence that might refute his theories, while stretching the truth or making up a few things to support his ideas. That’s not science. That’s fantasy.

Might aliens have influenced ancient civilizations? Sure. Might we have the ability to levitate if we learn to harness the power of our minds? Sure. Might mind-reading be real? Sure. But you need to PROVE it. Be skeptical, critical, and earnest in your investigation. Be more interested in the TRUTH than how you hope it might be or feel it should be or insist that it is! Seek the TRUTH, not what you want the truth to be. Anything else is a lie or distraction. Just because you believe something, does NOT make it true.

By ignoring data and avoiding scientific critique, Haramein appears far more interested in seeking what he wants the truth to be than what the truth actually is. Even if his underlying premise is accurate, the ends do NOT justify the means. His approach has undermined a geniune interest in the Truth, and damaged the sincere scientific dialogue in regards to understanding the connection between consciousness and physical reality.

@Bob: THANK YOU. You saved me a lot of time in my “Nassim research,” and have no doubt done the same for countless others.

Bob said...

Very well said, Observer. And thank you.

qlwdmh said...

Thank's for exposing that nutcase Haramein. I know that it's been a lot of work to do that. I am also very surprised that so many people tend to talk so much bullshit these days rather than discussing your criticism point-by-point. You've made a point about disrepancy of a mass of proton, and many other things. I would expect other people to explain at which point you were wrong. But no, they do not do that! They believe in authorities rather than facts. They want you to tell what other theories you have created yourself, and just after you present your theories you are allowed to critizise Haramein. This is such a bullshit and it is not how science works. If everyone had their own separate theories, we would not be able to develop science, as people would be talking in different languages. Constructuive fact-based criticism is very important, and I am grateful that you put so much effort in it.

There are many people, who believe in all kinds of hoaxes: hidden UFOs, faked Moon landings, a "system" which is hiding the truth, etc. Ok, fair enough, some level of scepticism is healthy. People should require facts being based by evidence, and if they do not have enough evidence, they have a right not to believe. But then again, they find some nutcase on youtube, and suddenly believe every word he tells! They think that they are the ones who resist the system, the ones who can not be manipulated, by they are usually the ones who are most psichologycally susceptible. And this is a dangerous thing. This is how sects arises, populists get elected, etc.

Anyway, thank's again. I can not imagine how come you had so much patience in answering so many blog posts.

Bob said...

Thanks qlwdmh!

Really there have only been a few comments a week, so responding to them isn't anywhere near as overwhelming as it might appear. They've accumulated steadily for two and a half years, and now it looks pretty crazy.

As you say, I'm still waiting for someone to explain at which point I was wrong.

So far, it seems that the only reason to dispute what I've said is that there are people who judge truth by their own preferences, but aren't self-aware enough to realise that that's what they do, and who don't like what I've said.

(If any of those people were capable of understanding a sentence like that, then talking with them would be a whole lot simpler...)

Anonymous said...

This blog sucks. Nassim is a genius, and you wish the truth spoke through you like it does Nassim. Learn how to evolve tard..

Bob said...

Thanks... always nice to get a glimpse into the sophisticated and enlightened mind of a Haramein fan...

John said...


This was a very enlightening read. I must admit, there was a long period of time during which I bought into Haramein's "ideas" part-and-parcel. I began to doubt him when I began to search the web for any sort of evidence of corroborating theories, and found that most were roundly and soundly debunking him. It was hard, initially, for me to admit that he was spouting nonsense. But, yes, he's a huge fraud. I do tend to hold a rather sceptical view of what Haramein calls "mainstream science", as much of it (to me) seems to border on religion. But Haramein and poorly-researched garbage like his gives alternative, underground, and amateur science a bad name... I sincerely hope that people looking for something truly different from the mainstream will take Haramein as a cautionary tale: do your homework, apply sound scientific practices, and avoid going past the "event horizon" of credibility.

Thanks for an honest and respectful article.


Bob said...

Thanks John.

If you feel that "much of [mainstream science] seems to border on religion", then your job is to question it. For everything you hear, ask "how do you know that is true?" "Why can't it be this way instead?" "What are the alternative ways of interpreting it and what are their advantages and disadvantages?" That's the only way science works – it is questioned.

The thing about science is that you're free to look as deeply as you wish into the decades or centuries of scientific investigation, experimentation and logical deduction by thousands and thousands of creative minds; the disputes, challenges, refinements and clarifications that went into the understanding we now have, and all the alternative ideas that fell by the wayside because they didn't stand up to rigorous comparison with the way nature behaves. And you're free to see which ideas enable people to build, to design, to create technology that works. Which ideas do people working in different areas or with different types of material rely on?

If all you ever hear about is the final answers that scientists present, and none of what's behind them, then of course you won't see any difference between that and religion. Popular science books tend to present science as stories, because that's what people want to read. If you're looking at the froth on the surface of a deep, deep, ocean. If you can't tell ocean froth from bathtub froth, then you need to stop looking at the froth and do some diving.

Personally, I wish more of science education was about how scientific ideas become established, and less about what those ideas are. If someone wants to know what the solar system is like, they can google it. Information is cheap. What is far more valuable is a discussion of how we know the things we know, why we think we know them, how that knowledge differs from stories, and how to question it deeply for ourselves. Then perhaps we wouldn't treat scientists so much like priests and passively expect them to tell us stories, which is sadly all too common now.

So if you want to know the difference, and if you want to know which bits of science are solid, which are theoretical, which are speculative and which are just bullshit, get yourself some diving gear, find yourself a good instructor or two, and get active. The creatures you'll meet down there will blow your mind.

Geo said...

Thanks to Bob and the others who artfully address the arguments, largely it seems from Haramein "disciples", that attempt to make this a style over substance debate. I, for one, couldn't care less about the style but rather the substance. If Haramein has wrong science, he has wrong science. Calling him peudo scientific is then the truth, whether it bothers one of his devotee's or not, is pointless.

Thanks again Bob and AP.

jp said...

just came to say thank you bob! i wish i had your patience. these theories would be great if they were true, the same way as say dog shit curing cancer would but unfortunately reality is what it is, people think that just because they can ask such grandiose questions about the universe that they must have some vital role within it. id like to know if to these people the idea of such complete insignificance is really all that disturbing? and why?....
thanks again for all your great work, the truth is the truth wether people like it or not.

Anonymous said...

I don't have a dog in this fight and don't really care one way or the other about NH.

My quibble is with the field of physics in general...or maybe I should refer to it as the field formerly consisting of experimentally vetted truths but now only consisting of theoretical/mathematical guessing based increasingly on hypotheticals and assumptions that have existed unchallenged for long enough that they are now taken as fact and handed down as such to the noobs in the field...and since there is no career to be made continually testing and validating such accepted hypotheticals (assuming they could be tested in the first place) physics is hopelessly doomed to perpetuate the flawed dogmatic theories of those looking for continued funding and validation of their life's work. Whew!

Seriously though...modern physics is really in a lot of trouble. It has been divorced from experimental validation for so long now that many of its underpinnings being taken and used as truth for further advancements have never truly been proven themselves. This is bad news.

Let's face it...if a bus full of people were 3000 miles into a drive across the country when they suddenly realized that they made a wrong turn at mile 100 do you honestly think they would be willing to turn around? Of course not.

Especially if half the passengers weren't even on the bus when it started its journey and have every reason to believe what they were told about the inerrancy of the route traveled before they boarded...and how entirely likely it is that those responsible for navigating the wrong turn in the first place got off the bus 1000 miles ago.

Of course, this assumes that there are people responsible for reviewing and testing every turn that was made while cross referencing it with all the other turns that could have been made thereby ensuring that they did in fact choose the correct route. But hell, the scenery looks to be correct for a place none of them have ever been to before, and since it seems to satisfy their hypothetical they must be going in the right direction. Besides, who cares if physics has lost its way, right? As long as there is a bus to ride and plenty of koolaid to drink.

We have this same basic problem in software design (or in ANY complex layered system for that matter) where it is universally easier to keep, maintain and write bloated code than it is to start with a clean sheet of paper. Most developers just don't have the stomach to toss what they see as "their" work into the ash can.

Human nature I suppose...

Bob said...

Can there be anything more empty and pretentious than making up a cliché-filled story about something you don't understand, and pretending it's a valid critique?

You haven't made a single reference to anything in modern physics anywhere in your little story. You haven't expressed any understanding of what modern physics even is, or any of the things in your house that rely completely on it. It's just a pathetic stream of prejudice, isn't it. You know that.

The excuses people give themselves for not bothering to attempt to understand the wonderful universe they live in are amazing.

Human beings are born to learn, to find out, to ask questions and to explore, not to stay ignorant and make total idiots out of themselves by pretending to know better than all the people who devote their lives to understanding something - you don't have to settle for that.

Anonymous said...

My post above regarding the physics community in general was unnecessarily harsh I will give you that, but I did not attack you personally and I am not your enemy. I too believe that the search for truth is a noble one…so long as it is honest.

Based on your response it is pretty clear that many in the physics community either can't or simply won't confront what is the essence of my post without getting defensive. Intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy are perhaps two of the most contemptible traits of those that claim to hold the keys to the physical world and proceed to dispense it to the rest of us from on high like the Old Catholic church. Ironic isn’t it? Modern physics is in some respects to the general population what the Old Catholic church was to Galileo (albeit without the whole killing thing). In fact, the attitude in your response illustrates perfectly why no one on the bus would turn around and make a course correction (let alone dig too deeply for a mistake in the first place). And how dare anybody else not in the front of the bus make the assertion that a wrong turn could have been made at all?

Isn't my little story (even with its obvious shortcomings) essentially what physics is anyway...an analogy used to describe the physical world in which we live? Regardless of how many decimal places are used to provide a theory the cover of correctness the entirety of physics is nothing more than a set of mathematical analogies that are (hopefully) at some point relegated to the trash heap in favor of a newer analogy that contains a few more decimal places. Sure some of it sticks and quite a lot of it has proven to be useful at our current resolution of understanding, but that does not make it fundamentally true and correct.

No matter how you slice it physics is surging forward with way too much yet-to-be validated theoretical momentum. The theoretical inmates have taken over the physical asylum. You would think physicists would have learned something from Ptolemy…just because the math works out doesn’t make it right. But I forgot...only a chef with the “proper credentials" can know when something smells and tastes like shite. The rest of us poor saps don’t know enough to have a sensible opinion about any of it.

Very few people are willing to speak out and be critical of current physics due to the cannibalistic tendencies within the physics community itself (see your response above as proof). Just ask Smolin…he is one of the few people with balls big enough to stand up and ask the tough questions that place into doubt many of physics’ sacred cows. I don’t agree with everything he says, but I do believe he is being intellectually honest and I can respect that.

Go ahead and take another shot at the messenger if that makes you any feel better…after all I am just another stupid schmuck, right? :)

Bob said...

Don't worry, I didn't feel attacked - I just felt like someone had left an ignorant, pretentious and bigoted comment on my blog, ranting against something fictitious, and apparently claiming it was a critique of modern physics.

I don't think I've attacked the messenger either - I've said nothing about you as a person. I don't know you. You might be a wonderful guy. It might be entirely out of character to leave ignorant, pretentious and bigoted comments. I can't claim to know why you did it.

Let's try again.

I'm going to try and search for some content in what you're saying.

1. Are you trying to claim that there are significant areas within modern physics which are never challenged or questioned or tested by mainstream academic institutions, or areas in which viable alternative scientific theories are not seriously considered or developed?

If you are, then do you have any examples?

If you have examples of such areas, then would you be interested if I can easily find researchers who are challenging or questioning or testing them, or researchers who are developing alternative theories? If I can easily find such things for any example you can come up with, then you don't have a point.

Presumably it's obvious to you that if you don't have any examples, then you don't have a point either. Just empty claims, and prejudice.

2. Are you trying to claim that mainstream science institutionally promotes an attitude towards science that attempt to prevent other people from holding views that could be scientifically valid?

If you are, then do you have any examples? I'm not talking about individual scientists saying dumb things - of course you can find individual scientists saying dumb things. That's not hard. I'm talking about 'the physics community in general'.

If you don't have any examples, then you don't have a point.

If you don't have a point, then your critique isn't a critique - it's an empty rant against something you've made up. Why should anyone care what you think about the fictions in your head?

Bob said...

The reason I would not hesitate to call your comments ignorant is that nobody with any understanding of the essential point of science or the way in which scientific research is actually carried out could possibly make such sweeping statements.

The entire point of science is to explore, to investigate, to test alternative ideas, to look for every possible reason why a theory might conceivably be false. Virtually everyone in science is in science for exactly that reason. They want to know what's going on. They want to discover something new. They want to find something that nobody has found before, or discover that something everyone thought was correct is not correct. Some do it within prevailing paradigms, some go way out on a limb and try to undermine prevailing paradigms. They're all out there.

If you want to do science in a new way, and find something revolutionary, you're free to do it. Sure, if you want to be taken seriously you'll have to convince people that you give a crap by showing some willingness and ability to understand the theories that unambiguously do work. If you can't be arsed to understand the problem, then there's no reason for anyone to waste their time listening to your solution. That should be fairly obvious. But other than that, go for it.

So if either of the two suggestions I've given for what you're trying to say is on the mark, give some examples.

If your point is something else entirely, then you'll have to actually say what it is. If you think it has something to do with modern physics rather than just some fiction in your head, then say something that has something to do with modern physics rather than a stream of opinions.

Informed critiques of modern physics as it's actually practised are very welcome here. I don't really see the point of uninformed critiques by people who think they're informed, or empty critiques by people who think they've said something cutting. You could be a wonderful and intelligent person in many ways, but if you do that, then you might as well walk around with 'idiot' written on your forehead.

Anonymous said...

It seems as though you have taken every single little slip of the tounge he makes and are trying to spin it around to make him look like a fool.. When Haramein quoted newtons law of conservation he was looking at it from a multi-universal perspective.. when something in nature expands.. does something else not contract to make way for it? If this happens on the smallest scales of the universe.. why is it so impossible to believe that it is happening with the universe itself? His theory simply states that it is entirely possible that while our universe is expanding.. a paralell universe may be contracting at the same time.. which from a conservation of energy standpoint makes perfect sense! He also does the MATH in regards to proving a proton is a black hole in newer videos. His calculations prove that a proton has the SAME energy density of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.. he then cross references these numbers on a scale ranging from the macrocosmic scales of the universe.. right down to the smallest sub-atomic levels.. The math adds up.. your mud slinging does not! Haramein IS at the cutting edge of physics.. its always been said that if your one step ahead of mankind.. your a genious.. if your two steps ahead of mankind.. Your a crackpot! I for one.. believe in this crackpot ;-)

Bob said...

I haven't taken little slips of the tongue. I've shown clear examples of him talking utter shite. And lots and lots of them, to illustrate that he talks utter shite all the time.

That's a lot better than just claiming he's talking utter shite and not explaining why.

But you can't please everyone. At least, you certainly can't please those who'll just believe whatever they like the sound of and completely ignore everything else.

Look, he doesn't "do the MATH". He misuses some equations, and jumps to stupid conclusions. If your so credulous that you'll believe anyone who says things that you like the sound of if they show you some equations that you don't understand, then you're going to fall for all kinds of crap.

Of course you can believe him if you like. I wrote the blog for people who are actually interested in whether or not someone is pulling the wool over their eyes. I didn't write it for people who are only interested in their own beliefs - I don't know what to say to them, apart from have fun and enjoy the silly stories.

Anonymous said...

I love how you call all of these things "misunderstandings" on the part of haramein... When.. In actuality.. I believe he is the only person to ever complete a verifiable formula for creation.. His numbers are cross referenced between ALL levels of quantum theory.. and they all add up! You keep poking at character flaws.. and unorthodox methods as a reason not to believe him.. when he has clearly explained the flaws in the standard model.. and then he has worked out the equations to solve them.. No matter how much mud you sling.. his math adds up.. and theres nothing you can say to change that! Cheers!

Bob said...

You can believe what you like.

I haven't poked at any character flaws or unorthodox methods. I have no idea about his character or his methods. I'm talking about the bullshit that he speaks and pretends is physics. The bullshit that so many arrogant, clueless, pretentious morons come here to proclaim is the real science.

I've pointed out many many many examples of him talking complete and utter bollocks, so that anyone with some modest level of intelligence and some modest ability to think things through rather than take on board whatever story they like the sound of, and who actually cares what the universe is like, can explore for themselves and get a sense of how pretentious he is.

I didn't write anything for people like you. You don't have to read it or take any notice at all.

I've never seen any point in attempting to change the mind of someone who has no interest in using it.

Eagle1969 said...

Dear Bob,

Instead of beating around the bush throughout this whole blog, can you put some light and expert comment on "Vacuum catastrophe" which has been termed "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!" and is the prediction of established quantum mechanics (also known as a theory that never failed an experiment!!!).

Bob said...


It's not the prediction of established quantum mechanics at all. It's the prediction of a very naïve application of quantum field theory to an issue far outside its sphere of applicability.

It's a very good illustration of the fact that if you extrapolate a good theory in a stupid way, you get a stupid result.

Eagles1969 said...

What you are saying,
1. Does that mean that QFT is not part of established QM !!!
2. And vacuum energy or zero point energy which is a result of fluctuation due to uncertainity principle is "far outside" its applicability.
3. By the way who (the stupid) extrapolated it and why then it is still counted in unsolved problem.

Bob said...

1. No, it means what I said: if you use QFT in the wrong way, you get wrong answers.

2. No. The Planck scale is far outside the realm of applicability of QFT. If you use QFT at the Planck scale, you get wrong answers.

3. Plenty of people have extrapolated QFT to the Planck scale and got the wrong answer. The only stupid ones are those who think it means physics is somehow broken.

If you try to ride your bike through a deep lake and it doesn't work, and you conclude that bike weren't supposed to work in lakes but hell, it was worth a try, then fine. Hopefully you'd agree that it was a bit of a silly idea anyway. If you think this 'lake catastrophe' proves that bikes are no good and that the people who claim to use them are bogus, then you'd be stupid.

Why is what an unsolved problem, exactly? There are lots of unsolved problems in physics. That why we have physicists. We know QFT works brilliantly for everything except gravity, but it doesn't predict gravity or the cosmological vacuum. We know general relativity works brilliantly for extreme gravity but doesn't predict quantum fields or the quantum vacuum.

But we know of nowhere in the universe where they come into conflict with each other. The only place they disagree is on paper. Still, it would be nice if they fitted together better, so that's one of the unsolved things physicists are trying to figure out.

Eagles1969 said...

dear bob,
i think you need to refresh your basics once again before you write something on quantum mechanics. if plank scale is outside QM (or QFT), and if QM works only within a short boundary, then it is "physics as you go" and it was made to fit all observation/prediction 9by the way that's how a theory is established, you keep on refining to fit the data). By the way, if QFT is extrapolated, then why it's prediction is still counted in one of unresolved physics problem? And for your kind information and knowledge, QM and special relaivity does come into conflict in quantum scale where gravity is also extreme (like blackhole singularity, neutron star) and comparable with so called strong QM force. And that's why bigger fools are still investing their valuable time for a unified theory.

Bob said...

Why are you trying to bash me with things you don't understand? It's very silly.

Of course mainstream physics is made to fit observations. That's what it's for - the world we actually observe.

"QM and special relaivity does come into conflict in quantum scale where gravity is also extreme" - It's QFT and general relativity that come into conflict. As I said. And only on paper, not in any place in the observable universe. As I said. They both work perfectly for everything in the observable universe, to the extent that we know how to observe them.


The extrapolated QFT "prediction" is called a problem because we are aware that QFT doesn't extrapolate to the Planck scale, so we know that there is more to explore beyond QFT as it stands.

A "problem" in physics just means something physicists don't know. Physicists aren't omniscient gods, you know - they're honest and careful explorers. They know what they've found, and they know what they haven't found yet.

So for you, the honest and careful exploration of the way the universe works is foolish, but using words you don't understand to make contemptuous comments about things you have no experience of is not foolish? You might want to reflect on that for a while. Please don't comment any further until you have.

Eagles1969 said...

Exactly what you have said bob. ""A "problem" in physics just means something physicists don't know. Physicists aren't omniscient gods, you know - they're honest and careful explorers. They know what they've found, and they know what they haven't found yet"". So before simply rejecting any fresh idea, think on it. And if you think you know everything about established theories, then better you come up with some idea that can atleast say something new (correct or not is a matter of time and experiment)...You may or may not understand string theory (for ex.) fully but may believe it partially that some day it might provide some promissing answer. I did not find any specific point in your blog that clearly indicate Nassim idea are totally wrong without leaving any doubt on it. I am not yet saying he is correct, but i think it would take a bit of extra effort before rejecting it in totality. Speacial relativity and qm lead to relativistic qm, however speacial relativity also then lead to general relativity (you know why) that does not fit well with qm. So one theory lead to another theory. No one is saying Newton's theory is completely wrong, but that required updation to answer a bit better way but that theory (general relativity) does not either fit with qm.

If you are happy with you computer without any botheration how it works, you are welcome. But for me a working model is not enough without explanation why it works. And by the way, no theory is ever made in first shot without requiring any adjustment later on to fit data.

And for your kind info, I am watching on this gravity/qm piece for last 20 years and did not find any solid answer to basic questions (like never ending source of strong/weak force or spin). I also strongly think that making bigger accelerator and finding tiniest particle (or energy mass) may not help as there is no limit on how deep is the rabit hole.

And Please get rid of scientific legacy. No matter Nassim is correct or not not, but the legacy is (and was) obstucle for any development or fresh idea.

"everything" is a big word. All phisics community would die in hunger without any budget if your understanding of everything is explainable in observable universe is correct.

If you are saying that Nassim is misleading people, then also understand one example, that the misunderstanding from a wrong alias of Higs particle as god particle (as wronly understood by majority of laymans) and hipe/propaganda that it would expalin mistry of mass is also very much misleading. I hope you would atleast agree that Higs bosson even if detected, as I don't think what is being claimed as detected is what was actualy expected, would not solve the puzzle. And actually, the current variant that is detected is leading to further puzzle.

So, I am fed up with development with old theories and welcome any radical idea (before rejecting it if proved wrong completely).

Now moral of the story is to find whether Nassim's so called half cooked work in progress theory is totally wrong or it still can hint towards something not yet thought by others and worked on to fit the data.

Take the positive and cut the crap.

Bob said...

I didn't reject it because I didn't understand it. I rejected it because I am willing and able to consider new ideas in the light of what is known about the universe, and on that basis it's clearly a pile of crap.

I don't care what you're fed up about. If you want to find out about the universe, go and investigate it. Requiring theories of physics to fit your preconceived ideas about what a theory should be like is moronic.

Physics is for people who are willing and able to take their preconceived notions of what reality should be like and gradually let go of them in light of what reality is observed to be like.

Haramein is for people who can't be arsed, and who think their preconceived notions are what matters. There is nothing positive in that. It's lazy, arrogant, narcissistic, pretentious and idiotic to think it has anything to do with the universe.

I think Haramein's work could be right up your street, my friend. Take that as my personal recommendation to you. Please, take a 'time will tell' approach to it, and meanwhile accuse scientists of closed-mindedness and go on ignorant prejudiced rants about things you don't understand. I think you'll enjoy it.

You're welcome.

Eagles1969 said...

And Dear bob, I ask one simple question based on your explanation @ http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html#s1
And provide a direct answer with the value of force....

Haramein's calculation of the force that holds two protons together in a nucleus, using his theory, gives a force of 7.49 x 10^47 dynes.

2. How much is the force of " neuclear Force or residual color force" in dyne that binds two proton

3. How much is "color force" that binds quarks.

Bob said...

Your one simple question appears to be two, labelled 2 and 3. Whatever.

2. Zero. Two protons don't bind.

3. About 10^9 dynes.

Bob said...

To answer your question 2, there would be an attractive residual colour force of about 2 x 10^7 dynes between two protons if you tried to force them together, but that isn't enough to overcome the electrostatic repulsion.

Eagles1969 said...

what about considering centrifigual force between two blackhole protons?

Bob said...

I did that. It doesn't make Haramein's claims any less idiotic.

Comparing 10^7 to 7.49 x 10^47 is like comparing the mass of a single bacterium to the mass of the Earth. You can see how stupidly wrong it is. Adding in centrifugal force doesn't make it go away. Even with centrifugal force included, to separate those protons it would still take half the energy required to separate the moon from the Earth. For just two protons!

We know they don't even bind anyway.

Look, the only people to whom Haramein looks like he knows what he's talking about are people who don't have any experience of calculations or of science. You'll find nobody with any understanding of science who doesn't think he's a joke. Why would anyone carry on looking for ways to take him seriously, after all this? It's really silly.

Anonymous said...

Is he a crackpot or just another smart ass trying to make a living exploiting people's credulity?

Bob said...

You mean does he actually believe the stuff that comes out of his mouth?

If he does, then he's a buffoon with a disturbingly grandiose view of his own stories and a dehumanising prejudice against every trained scientist in the world, because he is perfectly aware that none of them will take anything he says seriously.

If he doesn't, then he's a deceitful lying manipulative slimy toad, who lives by knowingly profiting from misleading people and misselling his brand.

I suspect it's a mixture of the two. He's aware enough to know that he's making shit up, but too intoxicated by his little empire of fans to admit to himself that he's abusing their trust. When hundreds of people think your ideas are amazing, it would take a very brave man to admit to himself and to the world that they're just stories. He's not a brave man.

Defrag said...

Haha, another Professional Skeptic. Your tell is the equal, categorical condescension regarding both die-hard believers and the obviously open-minded searchers; the smattering of anonymous, generic 'I just wanted to say thanks' comments doesn't help either.

To make matters worse, Haramein has only a golden handful of insights among his interminable hours of presentation, and he couldn't state them concisely to save a bus full of school children. There's no need to criticize the man, he's already a cruel parody of himself.

Haramein's attempt to be taken seriously as a scientist or mathematician is laughable, due largely to his inconsistent attention to detail. However, an over-arching character permeates his reasoning: There is a fractal structure to space-time which underlies both macroscopic and microscopic physical phenomena. This concept has a compelling aesthetic of unification, reminding one of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac, or any recognized 'genius' who allow their reasoning to be guided first by elegance, and second by experiment.

What causes a Galaxy to spin despite intense gravitational friction/chaos near it's center? What causes the earth's core to spin faster than it's crust, despite friction in the mantle? Why does every known fundamental particle exhibit an (albiet quantized) axis of rotation? How can a point rotate, or a wave? What gives all Supernovae their characteristic rotationally-symmetric shape? Why do all electron orbitals have at least one rotationally-symmetric axis?

These questions are the substance and importance of Haramein's work, not his shoddy amalgamation of half-assed 'proofs'.

But oh no, the Big Physicist has to come save us from accidentally believing something that wasn't published in Nature. Dropping bombs like "You can separate protons from a nucleus by tapping them with a tiny electron in a small accelerator" -- Holy shit! Have you replaced your car engine with a cold fission device yet? How many miles to the Kg of Plutonium?

It frightens me to think that people find Haramein's math compelling -- just as much as it frightens me to think you could be employed as a physicist somewhere.

Bob said...

Do you think I'm a professional skeptic? Do you think I get paid to write a blog criticising someone? Do you think I value accolades over creativity? You're just making shit up.

Why not refer to what I've actually said?

I like things that are weird and freaky. I love mystery and wonder. I've express this love many times here already. I don't make arguments to authority, I explain the reasons behind what I say.

I'd rather you read and try to understand what's here than give me your shitty authority projections. I'm no 'Big Physicist'. You're doing that, not me.

Look, if you want to know why galaxies spin, or why the Earth doesn't slow down, find out. It's very easy.

Just find out. Go to a library. Google it. Learn about angular momentum on Kahn academy or something. Ask people (preferably without throwing accusations at them like a toddler). It's not a secret, it's freely available public knowledge, and in fact I've discussed it on this very blog page which you'd rather criticise than read. Go deeper into classical mechanics if you want and find out how people found the things they found. Look at Lagrangian dynamics and Noether's theorem.

Every particle doesn't exhibit an axis of rotation - that's false. Most (but not all) have spin, but they don't rotate. You can find out about this too.

Supernovae come from rotating stars.

You want to know about electron orbitals, learn about quantum mechanics. These things are known. It's not secret. You can find out.

You want to know precisely how little energy it takes to release a proton by taping a nucleus with an electron? Find out.

If you're interested, we can discuss these things if you like. Right now, you don't sound like someone who can be arsed :)

Defrag said...

Sorry for coming on so strong. I only react this way because I have a deep interest in physics, and the nature of the Universe as a whole.

It is worth mentioning that I originally read your full dissection of the Swarzchild Proton paper a few years ago and was very impressed. It is also worth mentioning that my bet for unified theory is riding with Witten and Penrose' Twistor-M Theory, not pseudoscience gibberish. However it cannot be avoided that the Haramein-Rauscher solution bears a distinct similarity to Twistor theory. Otherwise, I will try to stick to the accepted physics.

Classical mechanics treats a planet or star as a uniform sphere spinning in a frictionless environment, with spin originating from the conserved angular momentum of orbiting material in it's formative accretion disk; correct?

But planets and stars are not uniform, solid spheres. The earth has a solid core, separated from a solid crust, by a liquid mantle. Stars have internal layers of gasseous convection; correct?

When two materials slide across each other, friction transforms their momentum into heat (until their momenta are equal, ceasing friction.) The second law of thermodynamics suggests that all closed systems tend toward uniformity; correct?

Yet, it has been confirmed that the earth's iron core spins faster than the crust (it has advanced ~1/4 turn vs the crust in the last 100 years.) Similarly the sun's core spins faster than it's outer layers, generating it's characteristic convective surface bands and turbulence, sunspots; correct?

Therefore: orthodox physics claims that planets and stars either violate conservation of momentum, or violate the second law of thermodynamics. How do physicists deal with this discrepancy from reality?
They don't.

Physics is fine with saying the earth's rotation is slowing -- It's gradually losing energy to the tidal forces of the moon, typical entropic tendency as per thermodynamics. Apply that to a galaxy -- internal chaos and gravitational 'friction' between layers and clusters of stars should prevent a galaxy from spinning at all!

How do physicists deal with this discrepancy from reality?
They don-- oh wait, I forgot. To get gravitational simulations to look like real galaxies, they cherry-pick Dark Energy constants and Dark Matter quantities to carefully balance each other, yielding (on a good day) something that sort of looks like reality.

Huh, that's funny. When I google these flaws in the standard cosmological explanation, not much comes up. What's more, it looks like physicists can only make their own theories fit reality by inventing 95% of the mass-energy of the universe, dividing it between two arbitrary placeholder concepts: Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

You're a physics guy, right? Help a layman out here; I'm no slouch, I'll do what it takes to figure out the real answer. Does physics have a non-magical answer for why galaxies continue to spin?

Bob said...

"They don't" - I'm sorry to disappoint, but they most certainly do deal with those things, in very great detail. If you think mainstream science makes do with fudges and orthodoxy, then you've never experienced mainstream science.

Friction doesn't transform momentum into heat, and it doesn't dissipate angular momentum either. Both are subject to conservation laws arising from Noether's theorem. There's nothing magical about that.

Thermodynamics: differential rates of rotation in compact bodies require engines. Do the Sun and Earth both contain engines? Yes, they do.

Measuring the amount of dark matter and dark energy in the cosmos isn't cherry-picking. It's measuring. Physicists look and see how much there is, and they write it down. If there's truth in their measurements, then they should be able to infer all sorts of unrelated predictions from them. Does that happen? Of course it does. You can dispute dark matter if you like, but you'll be paralysed by it. If you include the dark matter, as it has been measured, in your calculations, then it will allow you to make use of very reliable and accurate models in many many many areas of astrophysics and cosmology. If you don't, then you're stuck. Same with dark energy (which is pure century-old general relativity, it isn't some new invented thing to fudge recent observations).

The things that are reliable and faithfully reproduce nature are the models favoured by science. That's what it's for. Most scientists think that a model that faithfully reproduces what nature does and reliably predicts new phenomena is a model with some insight into reality. But in the end it's about what works, ideas that open doors to new explorations based on real observations of the real world, rather than closing them.

You don't have to believe in the Antarctic landmass if you don't want to. You can dispute and theorise as much as you like. But if you actually wanted to get to the South pole, you'd find that it's bloody difficult unless you get with the Antarctic landmass idea.

It's like that.

It's easy to pooh-pooh the ideas from the sidelines when you're not committed to trying to make detailed new observations of nature, but it would be idiotic and paralysing if you were.

Defrag said...

(Part 1)

That's a pretty broad definition of 'measuring.' So we now believe that all forms of energy are conserved, and also that all objects in the universe are accelerating away from each other. That squares with you?

Physicists like to say it's because the space itself is expanding, it has negative curvature or whichever. Wikipedia: "Using the upper limit of the cosmological constant, the vacuum energy in a cubic meter of free space has been estimated to be 10^−9 Joules."

Let Ev represent the estimated vacuum energy per volume in Joules. For an arbitrary cubic region of space C, with volume V0 (in meters^3), let T represent the time (in seconds) required for it's volume to expand to (2 x V0), and call that Vx.

So this particular volume of space, V, originally contains (Ev x V0) Joules of energy. After T seconds, the *same region* of space will contain (Ev x Vx = Ev x V0 x 2) Joules of energy.

So that's fine -- New space can just emerge everywhere, with it's own measurable vacuum energy, and this doesn't violate conservation of energy.

As for measuring, say, Dark Matter. Imagine I build a toy rocket, and calculate a volume of solid fuel, Vf, which will propel the rocket 1 mile into the sky. I launch my rocket, and find that it travels 2 miles high before falling. Puzzled, I repeat this experiment and repeatedly find that the rocket travels 2 miles. I check my calculations and verify that the energy-output of the fuel should only carry the mass of the rocket 1 mile.

The solution is simple! There must be Dark Fuel inside the rocket. I cannot find it, I don't know what it is, and I don't know how it interacts with the solid fuel I provided -- but it happens repeatedly right?

So now, how do I measure the amount of Dark Fuel in my rocket? Well, it's the difference between the expected energy and the measured energy of course!

Defrag said...

(Part 2)

This is the sense in which physicists have 'measured' Dark Matter. The formation of galaxies does not agree with General Relativity, differing in certain cases by some consistent factor. This factor is then given the moniker "Dark Matter," from the assumption that it must be some hitherto-unmeasured-and-invisible form of matter present in galaxies.

But maybe my calculations about the toy rocket were wrong. Perhaps I have fundamentally misunderstood something about my rocket fuel, or the planet's gravity well; but these understandings are so so well-validated and ingrained in my calculations that if I abandoned them I wouldn't be able to calculate ANYTHING with certainty -- Much easier to assume that everything works the way I've already found, and there is some mysterious Dark Fuel which regularly winds up in the rocket.

When our physical theories differ this much from our cosmological reality, so much that we are happy to accept that there is 5 times as much unseen, un-predicted matter as solid visible matter, and that even this number is a fraction of the originless, un-predicted energy necessary for the Universe to turn out the way it has... I'm sorry, but it's time for a new theory.

Forget the swarzchild bullshit for a minute. The Haramein-Rauscher solution is not such a broad step; If space-time is elastic like a fabric, stretched by the mass of certain objects, why shouldn't I be able to twist the fabric of space-time? In the same way that a gravitational field traditionally applies acceleration to particles toward it's center, why not also along an axis of rotation? Rotation is as universal to objects as translation, you will hardly find an object in the universe without spin. Why should space-time itself be disallowed to rotate?

This is a philosophical argument, but as so many great breakthroughs in physics begin with a philosophical commitment and are only later validated experimentally, and as we are at such a loss to explain the nature and origin of Dark Matter and Dark Energy (less their effects on galactic structure), this is an appropriate time to entertain wild and unprecedented theories.

By all means, I am interested in the way physics deals with the aformentioned, and if there exists greater insight into the nature of the Dark Matter or Dark Energy problems. By being so harshly dismissive of this work, you have invited this line of inquiry. I am but a layman! Please, enlighten me!

Bob said...

There's no reason to believe that energy is conserved in a changing Universe. See here for an explanation.

You're just wrong about dark matter. You're making shit up again. Go and find out about it. It's silly to pretend you've broken something when you just don't know how to operate it.

I don't understand why anyone would expect the majority of stuff in the universe to be conveniently visible to our eyes. We already know of loads of things that aren't. You can just pretend that it's reason enough to reject a theory... or you can find out about them.

Twists in spacetime is not a new idea, it's as old as general relativity itself. The torsion of spacetime appears in the connection, but it doesn't have any effect on the dynamics of the theory. You can find out about it. People have worked (and still are working) on variations of relativity in which it does have an effect, but as yet there is no evidence to support any of them, despite lots of people looking very carefully for it.

I'm dismissive of Haramein and Rauscher's work because I can see exactly what they're doing and I can see perfectly well that it's bullshit. I recommend that you don't dismiss reliable working theories in physics on the basis of not understanding how they work, because that's nothing more than prejudice. I assume that's not something you aspire to.

Be patient. If it doesn't make sense to you, remember that some of the brightest people in the world study this stuff for many years and devote their lives to finding valid flaws in it. There's no orthodoxy. They'll make a big name for themselves if they can pull it apart. If instead someone doesn't bother with that and just becomes a vocal critic without knowing what it means, why should anyone take them as anything but idiots?

Defrag said...

I suppose there is no point continuing to argue the physics. It's undeniable that you have a vast working conception of the field, and you have for the most part fairly countered my inquiries. As noted, my study of physics is on-going, as much as I am able against life's myriad responsibilities. So, thank you for bearing with me.

The reason for my intense skepticism is not a lack of understanding of the character of science, but rather a keen understanding of the psychology of man.

Hypothetically, if there were some technology which allowed the production of over-unity power, the implications would shatter the very foundations of society and governance. In time all scarcity would evaporate, all weapons infinitely powerful, all men become God. At a simplistic level it threatens every human power-structure extant on earth, and at a deeper level, it would threaten to obliterate the planet, the solar system, the galaxy; limited only by the imagination of man.

If this possibility exists in any form whatsoever, it is already known to some men by virtue of the scientific method; those men in turn could go to any lengths and utilize unlimited resources in their effort to control this knowledge.

In such a hypothetical scenario, I would predict precisely what I find: An internet full of idiotic 'free-energy researchers' or 'alternative scientists', constantly at war with an active community of skeptics, debunkers, and university-trained scientists.

I would predict this because the cheapest and most effective way to hide the truth is to bury it in an innavigable labyrinth of human argument. The only way to stop something from coming to light, is to flood the info-scape in half-baked parodies, destroying the credibility of the pursuit itself.

I have no evidence to suggest you are part of such a scheme. But the existence of a relatively small group of scientists who dispense consensus is automatically suspect. No one working in a scientific field can deny the role that financing and politics play on what is discovered, and what is left uninvestigated.

...Forgive my divergence into 'conspiracy theory' territory. Regardless, this discussion has been enlightening. Peace out.

Bob said...

The vast majority of scientists don't give a monkeys about the corporate order of the world. At least, speaking from experience of astrophysicists particle physicists and cosmologists, I can be very clear on this. I guess it could be different in some more directly practical fields, but these folks honestly aren't the kind of people who accept orthodoxy imposed from the outside. You should meet some. They're mostly a bit nuts. They're certainly not what you think they are, or worry that they are.

Look up professional theoretical and experimental physicists on the internet. The overwhelming majority aren't at war with alternatives at all. It's hard to find more than a few who are, out of many tens of thousands. Most would see no reason to waste their time taking any notice of people who are clueless and hostile. It's nothing to do with disagreement - physicists thrive on disagreement, dispute, radical ideas and arguments. But cluelessness is different.

Cluelessness is very easy to spot. You'll easily be able to distinguish someone who's clueless about your home town from someone who's not. I wouldn't. If I want to know the difference, I'd either let you tell me which is which (if I trust you) or take the trouble to get to know your home town (if I really want to be sure for myself). But I can be sure of one thing - the two people may sound equally plausible to me, but it will be totally obvious to you if someone is bullshitting.

It's like that.

Science relies extremely heavily on a high degree of honesty and self-awareness from each scientist with regards to the limits of their understanding. If someone starts bullshitting, whether they believe in what they're saying or not, they will very quickly be caught out and pulled under. It's ruthless, because it has to be. So it's something scientists have an extremely keen eye for, though it may not be obvious to people on the outside.

Get to know some physicists. Go easy on the conspiracy theories and the bullshit, even to joke about it. It would probably make them wince. Just see what they're like as people, what they value. You'll find a huge range of characters, but I think you'd find that a keen awareness of the importance of every individual knowing the limits of their understanding will be common to all.

Another (related) thing that they'll share is an appreciation of the value of going out of your way to attempt to dispute your own ideas. That's what distinguishes scientists from pseudoscientists. Do they dedicate their time to trying to prove themselves right (pseuds) or wrong (scientists). Scientists have to, because they know their colleagues will. Psueds don't, because they know their followers won't.

Alkanphel said...

Why haven't you posted Nassim's reply here that is on the resonance project website. He addresses all questions and specifically asks you to post it here, yet you do not. Strange.

Bob said...

I did post it here. I even wrote about it in lots of detail.

Haramein's reply is a wonderful example of something entirely empty of relevant content, designed to look impressive to people who don't understand it.

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

As you can see from the hundreds of comments below that post, nobody has found anything yet, so you'd be the first. Good luck.

Leon Feingold said...

Howdy Bob! It's taken me a couple of days, but I've finally read the entire blog, comments, responses, and all.

I learned about NH this past week at Envision Festival, an enjoyable but over the top Burning Man-inspired hippie festival in Costa Rica. One of his "emissaries" (Jamie Janover) was both a musician performing there, and a speaker on the concept of Harimein's UFT. I sat through his 2-hour talk, and - well, one of your previous commenters summed it up well:

"As with most people, I was initially in awe with a new unified theory that I have never heard of before but this is a pretty sold step back in connecting non-science (laymen) people to unified field theory."

I was intrigued by the concepts proposed, both because 1) on its face it seemed to answer a lot of outstanding questions (doesn't there need to be an equal-but-opposite reaction to an expanding universe? Why is the night sky dark if we're surrounded by stars? Why do we keep finding smaller and smaller building blocks of matter that make us constantly readjust our understandings of the universe? What's the mystery of dark matter that accounts for the other 95% of the energy/weight of the world?); because 2) they parallel many of the things many of us have once thought of on our own (the worlds-within-worlds concept in particular); and because 3) he proposes them in such a positive and convincing way that we would LOVE to believe that the things he proposes are true.

I am an attorney, business owner, and Mensa member, but have no physics background. I therefore asked some questions after the talk and got some useful responses, and a couple that were less-than-satisfactory. I was completely intrigued by the concepts, but was heavily concerned that without exception, EVERY SINGLE PERSON who was on the NH bandwagon at the event was an artist, musician, spiritual practitioner, etc - and NO ONE who had any mathematical, scientific, or astronomical background was involved or contributing. I was also concerned about the accuracy of some of the claims made during the talk (about tetrahedrons, mapping major cities and cultural phenomena onto the Earth at specific latitudes to conform to geometrical shapes, the unique significance of water's role and presence throughout the universe, etc.) and wanted more facts - especially since beyond the surface level of "Oh, that makes total sense" it devolves into the sublimely ridiculous of alien visits, supposed knowledge of spaceship details, etc. which try the patience of most scientific and intelligent minds.

Leon Feingold said...

Part 2: So I started poking around the Internet and found this site. Am superglad I did. Bob, whomever you are, you've got the patience of a saint (although not as much over the last year as earlier, as though your precocious 4 year old is now 7 and is STILL asking the same questions and not listening to the answers any better than he did 3 years earlier). I especially love the analogy to Mandarin vs a Chinesey-sounding babble language.

I will say, however, there's one area in which you definitely sell these people short: NH and his ilk are genuinely convinced (IMHO) they are on to something; they completely believe what they're saying. Furthermore, the people at the bottom of the info chain who have been posting here, supporting the Resonance Project, and so on, are MUCH more than fringe new-age crazies. They run the gamut from established artists and performers to professionals in many fields (none of which are science-related, obviously) to college students to world travelers and hikers to nearly every outside-the-box-thinking career/occupation/hobby. By lumping them all into your caricature of Loony Luna from Hogwarts, you're really underestimating both the reach and the danger of so many misinformed people. These people to a single person genuinely believe that NH is correct, because they don't or won't have the ability or forum to understand the things you've discussed openly here. They desperately believe in the supernatural, astrology, crystals, and share a distrust for government-sanctioned research and what they consider "mainstream" pap. NH gives them an alternative prophet to follow, and they do so - not with the blind, unquestioning devotion of a religious cult, but because they believe they have understood his explanations to provide the answers they've sought. He makes sense to them. And they never learned their Alexander Pope:

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring."

In summary, thanks for providing the wherewithal for a rational and curious person like me to weigh facts (rather than emotions, or what I would like the truth to be) and make my own decisions as to NH's concepts. It's been comical watching the commenters reliably recite what they've "learned" from NH's lectures (and most commenters have posted his arguments nearly verbatim) and then devolve into personal insults when you disprove those arguments. Keep up the good work.

Bob said...

Howdi Leon! Great to hear from you. I think that's a very fine assessment (including in my own shortcomings in terms of patience reduction of late - sorry about that).

You're right to point out that his followers aren't all loony tunes. Hopefully that's not something I've said... although I'm sure I'm guilty of dismissive comments about them. What I would say is that, whatever creative and rational faculties they may possess in their own particular worlds, what they all share is the characteristic of simply not being interested enough in reality to seriously question their first impressions / intuition / gut response to his stories. AND a deep inability or unwillingness to honestly assess the limits of their understanding.

There's so much wealth of information out there (and such a lack of anything but stories from people like Haramein) that I don't believe he has a single follower with a genuine interest in the Universe beyond their own preferences.

I don't question their sanity or their sincerity. I'd question their self-awareness...

Re NH, I'm sure he can get into the zone where he's all about the Resonance and it's as real to him as it is to his fans, but I simply can't believe he doesn't ever sit down and think for a moment to himself, you know, I did just make this shit up, and I only go along with it because they're all telling me how great it is...

Anonymous said...

You are more self-righteous than a tele-evangalist. And when you are not being that, you are being a jerk. What is wrong with you that you HAVE to put people down for their opinions in such a hostile manner? I started reading the comments here, i can't believe your attitude. All I can say is thank god for the Nassim Haramein's of the world.

Bob said...

Hello anonymous. Your demonstration of how not to put someone down in a hostile manner for their opinions was most enlightening. Thank you.

Seriously, though, you're entirely free to disagree with me because of your preferences and opinions. Is there anything I've said that you disagree with on the level of factual content, or do you just not like it?

William Day said...

Bob, you are under the spell of ignorance. You are acting under the false assumption that you have the faculties to perceive reality for what it is (no human possesses these qualities). You are complaining that Haramein thinks he is more intelligent than the physics community, but i think this self righteous attitude is yours and not his. Your critiques of Haramein are really reflections of your own insecurities. You will disregard my comments as you do everyone else's in fear of disturbing the fragile and feeble framework that is your human mind. Is it possible Harameins ideas do not coincide with traditional physics because the basic laws you follow are inaccurate? The fundamental laws were proposed by humans, it only makes sense that they be flawed just as Harameins are, and just like yours.

Bob said...

I know that I don't have the faculties to perceive 'reality for what it is'. I haven't been talking about 'reality for what it is'.

Science isn't about that either. It's about the nature of the relationships between the objective component of the universe we experience. (By objective, I mean the part that remains true whether we believe in it or not. Like gravity.) It's a method that involves looking very carefully at the universe, finding things out and testing hypotheses against experience.

It is the job of physicists to find flaws in the laws of physics. That's what they do!

Please find one physicist who isn't devoted to trying to find flaws in our understanding of the universe. I'm sort of curious to know what you think they are doing.

My suspicion is that some people seem to think physicists are more like policemen. These are people who have never met physicists, have never worked in science, have never taken the trouble to investigate where our ideas about laws of physics come from. It's true, isn't it?

Of course I won't disregard your comments. I'd like to know about the flaws in the laws of physics that Haramein has shed light on. Please tell me what they are, and how you know that Haramein's versions are anything more than stories made up to impress clueless people.

All the technology of the world you live in, whether you believe it or not, whether you understand it or not, relies on the laws of physics as we know them. Science doesn't give us ultimate reality, and doesn't claim to. What we have is accurate, faithful descriptions of many things that can be relied upon to be the case in this universe.

Is there anything he says about the universe that can be relied upon to be the case whether you believe it or not?

Surprise me.

Esayas Gebremedhin said...

Imagination is more important than knowledge. I can see tell his great contribution to be real because it is always someone outside a respected field creating a revolution within a closed traditional system. His alien theories are a bit exaggerated though. His boundaries is imagination and space -> Nothing.

Wendy Langer said...

Esayas, you have said that "it is always someone outside a respected field creating a revolution within a closed traditional system."

This is not true. Consider Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein(*), Curie, Planck, De Broglie, Schrodinger, Meitner, Feynman, and many more.

All spawned revolutions of various sizes in our understanding of the physical world. None came from 'outside' the world of established physics (although the field would have been called Natural philosophy during the lifetimes of some of the earlier ones on this list!).

None were 'outsiders'. They all trained extensively in the field of physics before making their great discoveries or leaps of intuition.

They all collaborated with others trained in the field, both before and after their innovations.

They may have encountered opposition and strong argument, but they were not considered, nor did they consider themselves, as separate from or outside of the field as a whole.

* Originator of the quote "Imagination is more important than knowledge", as you probably know :)

Milo said...

"I've given several reasons why this is silly."

You gave one...

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

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

No offense, Bob, but it seems to me like you're the one here relying on the one perspective of the current accepted theory.

You can comment on the other post I put up, but wouldn't you say that you seem to be the one here that is close-minded in that you fail to see the benefit in looking at things from a different perspective, even if it goes against everything you have been shown?

Not that I actually expect for you to answer any questions without ignoring the actual question and spouting off some point you wanted to edge in...

Bob said...

Should I be interested in what it seems to you?

I've written a post about physics. If physics were a matter of how things seem to Milo, then I guess you'd have a point.

I'm very happy to answer your question.

"wouldn't you say that you seem to be the one here that is close-minded in that you fail to see the benefit in looking at things from a different perspective, even if it goes against everything you have been shown?"


So can we talk about physics now?

JJ McKenna said...

Could you elaborate a bit please if possible why it is impossible to harness the vacuum? It was kinda the reason why I was looking to get into this subject matter as it fascinates me don't worry I didn't fall for this charlatan using newtonian physics on the quantum scale where well gravity as far as I know has little effect.

Bob said...

Hi JJ. I can't explain why anything is impossible, because I don't know a theory of everything. Who knows what could be discovered in the future.

What I can say is that the myth of energy from nothing has fascinated people for centuries - thousands of people have claimed to have designed or created perpetual motion machines and tried to sell them, promising endless wealth. All were bogus. Many, I'm sure, were honest but naïve. It's a natural human fantasy.

In classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics prohibit this very clearly. These are very well-established laws. Most of classical and quantum physics (a lot of which is astonishingly reliable) rests on these laws. If there was anything amiss with them we'd have noticed.

In quantum physics, vacuum energy is predicted by quantum field theory, which is also astonishingly reliable. In QFT, the vacuum is the ground state, which means the lowest energy state possible. If you want an analogy, think of the water on the surface of a deep ocean. Compared to the bottom of the ocean, that water is very high up - it appears to have a lot of potential energy. We know that we can build a hydro-electric power station to tap into the potential energy of water that is high up by allowing it to fall. Can you do the same with the water at the top of the ocean? I'll leave you to ponder that :)

In gauge theories, which are an elaboration of quantum field theory, it is possible to have different vacuum energies. The vacuum we are in now might not be the lowest one - it is possible for one vacuum to change to another by "spontaneous symmetry breaking". Unfortunately, if such a thing happened here now, it would spread outwards at the speed of light as an uncontrollable wall of energy, and almost certainly obliterate any trace of everything recognisable in the universe. The standard model of particle physics (which is also astonishingly reliable) is a gauge theory, in which spontaneous symmetry breaking occurred in the first tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang (this is known as the Higgs mechanism).

If our vacuum isn't the lowest energy one, it's hard to imagine how it has survived for 13.8 billion years.

In cosmology, there is a cosmological constant, which is something we can observe and measure. The cosmological constant causes the universe to expand at an accelerated rate. Some people call it 'dark energy'. You could interpret this as a vacuum energy.

In fact it is possible to tap into it!

Here's what you do. Make a huge net. Find a cluster of galaxies that is moving away from us due to the expansion of the universe, and throw your net around it, and let the cluster of galaxies pull a rope that drives an engine that generates electricity. Since it is the the energy of the vacuum (cosmological constant) that is making the cluster accelerate away from us, this energy is coming from the vacuum itself.

Can't be too hard...

Eric Meece said...

The reason he says you need something to contract in order to expand, is not to "make more room for more space," as you claim. It takes force to create an explosion. He's just pointing out that in explosions or sudden expansions (as the big bang is supposed to be), some kind of contraction must take place to bring it about. That is true of any explosion that exists, so why exempt the big bang from this requirement?

To dismiss this idea seems silly when physics can say nothing at all about what "caused" the big bang. Philosophers know that it can only be God, or the unmoved mover; otherwise "causal explanations" go back into infinity. Haramein's version of this first cause is the torus structure, which is so frequently found in esoteric explanations of the universe and ourselves.

Eric Meece said...

Your critiques of his statements may turn out to be criticisms of metaphors that he uses, rather than his actual physics.

Bob said...

It's not true that explosions require some kind of contraction to take place. I've no idea where you got that from. If you explode something explosive, it just explodes.

It's not true that the Big Bang can be thought of as an explosion anyway - it's the expansion of space, not an expansion of stuff into space - so there's no reason to assume the same rules should apply.

It's not true that "Philosophers know that it can only be God". You're ignoring almost the whole of philosophy and just saying the stuff in your head. Are you not aware of this? Surely you don't think you're speaking on behalf of philosophers everywhere. Aren't you aware that you're just making stuff up?

I'll be honest, Eric. I think you're on precisely the right lines here. If you can't tell the difference between the process of finding out what the world is like and the made-up things in your head, then Haramein is absolutely the man for you. Don't let anyone put you off.

AMDC Research said...


I found your blog when looking for information about Nassim Haramein and wondered what motivation would cause someone to spend this much effort discrediting someone. It would help me understand if I knew anything about you, but when I tried to view your bio there wasn't any information available. I'm curious about both...?

Bob said...


If you could see that someone was a fraud and that they were misleading people, and nobody else was doing anything about it, would you not want to say something? I think you would.

I haven't spent much effort really, I just wrote a couple of blog posts and replied to some comments. Take a look at real bloggers if you want to see people making an effort to share what they understand. You know, the ones who write several posts a week for year after year. Why do they do it? It's good to share, and to have conversations that could be helpful to people. I've learnt a lot from people commenting and emailing too.

The reason I disagree with Haramein over physics is not a matter of opinion or worldview. It's because I'm competent and honest, and he is not.

Vivvidd Rose said...

Thanks. I was hoping to find someone else who thought Nassim made no sense. As for all those defending him, sheesh, aren't you people listening to him?? This Nassim is an arrogant idiot. Sorry, I can't put it any nicer.

Glub said...

Having done my homework on this man -- from viewing the video to some research on other sites (biased to one side or another) -- I've found the peer review approval Nassim is bragging about on his site (http://resonance.is/#nassim, last access: 06/06/2013).

Three anonymous peer reviews (none of the reviewers seems to like having their names linked to Nassim's work) are available at http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history.php?iid=224&id=4&aid=1298.

The more explicit rebuttal goes as:

"This manuscript contains trivial mathematics and algebraic manipulations expresed (sic) as more important than they are. The manuscript is filled with nonsensical sentences without proper definitions etc.

If there is an explanation, why the product of proton charge and Schwarzschild radii is about equal to the square of Planck length, it not given (sic) in this manuscript, where is explained nothing.

This text should not be published. One should not publish this kind texts (sic) as science."

Another reviever asks some questions and ends by stating a pure and simple "no" to publication:

"The author defined the holographic mass and applied it to the black hole and the proton. There are some interesting coincidences, e.g. similarity with strong force and Yukawa potential in short range in the study. However, There are still some questions to be answered:

1)The meaning of holographic principle(HP) is definitely not that used in the paper. Moreover, the area in Eq.(4) should be surface area. Generally, HP is no problem when used in black holes, but it is problematic when used in the weak gravitational field. How to guarantee its validity when used in the system of protons?

2) The black hole mass and proton mass were obtained from different formula (Eq. 9 and Eq. 24), although they were explained in holographic principle. Why?

3) The author described a system in section5 to use the gravitational interaction to explain the strong force. Where could we see the evidence of gluon? Or does the gluon derived from the evolution of graviton?

4) For the system consisted of two protons, there indeed are many coincidences. But if they cannot be extended into other systems, e.g. three protons etc., the phenomena described in the paper is not enough to support their conclusion.

In a word, the conclusions obtained in the paper are highly implicative in the physical mechanism. However, it is interesting to understand further these coincidences found by the author. The paper is no proper to be published in the present form."

The third reviewer considers that:

"The Paper is well-motivated, well-written and contains interesting results. All calculations are correct and the presentation is also suitable. I recommend publication of this paper. The only thing that is necessary to be considered before publication is a reference to the Planck scale physics. This can be done by referring to [arXiv:hep-th/0508078] and [arXiv:1205.0158]."

Following initial reviews, the author wrote extensive comments on the reviews, and they seem to have cleared the path: 2013 - Volume 3 [Issue 4 (October-December)]. One of them is:

"This paper utilizes what is referred to as a
generalized holographic approach to the
physical properties of the objects studied. One
should keep in mind that the "holographic
principle" was loosely named after the analogy
of a hologram by 't Hooft due to the Bekenstein
conjecture that the information of the volume of
the black hole may be holographically expressed
on the 2 dimensional screen of it's horizon
surface area. (We have added a comment in
parentheses in the manuscript on line 75 to
reflect this comment.)"

Terms dropping (or "loosely naming something as") "holographic principle", which in turn is part of Bekenstein conjecture? Should I add that a conjecture is an unproven proposition? Talk about some strange phenomena happening at event horizon of weird science.

Bernhardt B. Husen said...

Hi Bob !

I can only agree with your critics of Nassim... he has no idea of physics. His article about "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass" is nothing but nonsense. Your very objective critics about his work are detailed and above all, they are absolutely right !

His ridicules bragging promotion: (a hyperjoke)

"Nassim Haramein has spent years researching the geometry of hyperspace…"

...and stupid quotes:

"The vacuum directs reality and reality portrays the structure of the vacuum."

...tell me everything about the person "Nassim" and leaves the strange impression that this vacuum is only to find between his ears… sorry, but it’s embarrassing to read this obvious rubbish.

What I am wondering about is the answer from "AMDC Research", his own profile is empty for information and seem to be made for the occasion only, but it would help him to understand... if he knew more about you ? He is the kind of guy like Nassim is... as if information about a person can reject the objective critics, this person makes. But objective critics are independent of the person giving them... My guess is that "AMD Research" is "Nassim the great" himself...

Alfonso Araujo said...

Wow, you guys are having a great discussion. Bob, I want to congratulate you for your extreme patience and obviously well/intentioned dedication. A friend of mine mentioned this Haramein character to me the other day. I saw some of his material, was horrified, and ended up here. I read your very thoughtful analysis and then the WHOLE thread. Man you are patient. Kudos to you. As I have found out, in Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries there has also been a spike of attention for this dude, so I would like to ask your permission to translate your article into Spanish and post it at my blog (lmndsxtrn, also here at blogspot), with a link back here and any additional information you would like me to include. My blog is not mainly about science but I do talk about it every so often, so let me know if you agree. Congrats on your blog.

Bob said...

Thanks Alfonso :)

Yes, if you're thinking of a real translation (not just Google Translate), then please do. Leave a link in the comments here. I think that would be very helpful.

Lots of people from Spanish-speaking countries visit here. I know of one blog post about him in Spanish, which you may have seen - here's a link to it. As you can see from the comments there too, writing about him can generate a bit of opposition, so be careful.

If you have any questions for your translation, such as clarifying any of the physics, please email me.

Alfonso Araujo said...

Hello Bob, thank you for your response. I will put the link here in the comments when I'm done (probably this weekend) - definitely NOT Google Translate though, it may come out as if you are actually supporting Haramein or something :D. And don’t worry, I have an engineering background so the terms and concepts won’t be a problem.

Also, thanks for the Spanish link, it’s interesting but I have to say, your analysis is way better.


Anonymous said...

Hi Bob! I feel like I'm phoning in a radio show. I'm one of the few readers still on the fence, just saw that the great Haramein has been peer reviewed here: http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract.php?iid=224&id=4&aid=1298#.UdSEpDtOSSq

Having virtually zero knowledge about what it takes to get peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal, (or if such a feat actually means anything), I look to you.


Bob said...

Hi Son! Hopefully I can help you off the fence a little.

The journal is not reputable (in fact they're a known predatory publisher that chases scientists offering to publish for cash), but they have mimicked the name of the most prestigious physics journal (Physical Review). So that's a pretence.

The research organisation he calls himself director of is entirely invented by him for him. So that's a pretence too.

None of the claims made in the paper have anything to do with the calculations, which are simple high school algebra, surrounded by impressive-sounding physics buzzwords. The whole thing is deeply dishonest, and relies on fans not understanding any physics but just being vaguely impressed.

Lots of claims made in his marketing are also dishonest.

Please see these two comments dated 19th June 2013, and also this comment dated 6th June 2013.

Let me know if you've any questions.

Alfonso Araujo said...

Hello again, Bob. It took me a while to post the Spanish translation because I have been travelling, but here it is as promised, with a link back to here at the beginning of the article:


The whole thing is also in a Scribd file:



Bob said...

Hi Alfonso

That's excellent! Good work. I've added a link at the top. Good luck :)


Anonymous said...

Re: The hype and the Schwartzschild Proton (minor criticism)

You lost some oomph when you tried to show us how silly it was to propose that a force of 7.49 x 10 47 dynes was required to bind Protons. You started out well by giving us physical examples with accompanying magnitudes for comparison: Mount Everest on my head: 10 21 dynes; 50 megaton nuclear bomb: 10 22 dynes. But then you went astray with: "You can separate protons from a nucleus by tapping them with a tiny electron in a small accelerator". The verb “tapping” here suggests an equivalent misleading usage in common parlance (as in tapping someone on the shoulder); and then the diminutive adjectives “tiny” and "small" which although used appropriately with reference to the size of the electron and accelerator respectively, don’t modify a given force—and of course that is partly because you don’t provide us with one. It would help if you did. I briefly wondered if you were deliberately trying to slip a subtle categorical error by your readers in order to fool them. I don’t think this is the case, but some might.

Bob said...

Hi Anonymous - thanks for that point.

There's no sneakiness going on. If I've not been clear, then I apologise. The intention of this post was to keep things non-technical... there's a separate post with a little more physics detail here.

The issue of the forces is covered better in this one.

Nuclear and particle physicists rarely use the concept of force at all, because energies and potentials are far more relevant and useful for describing the world that they explore. Which is why I compared energies rather than forces in the post I just linked to. But if you wanted a rough sense of the forces involved in holding protons in nuclei, you could take the example of the Helium nucleus (which has the most tightly bound protons by a long long way of any nucleus), and divide the 3.2 x 10^-12 Joules proton separation energy by the characteristic scale of the nuclear force, which is about 10^-15 metres. The result is 3200 Newtons, which is 320 million dynes.

Haramein's number is more than 2000 million million million million million million times bigger than this.

There are lots and lots of ways of comparing Haramein's number with reality. I'd encourage you to explore as many as you can find. The observable fact is that the strong force between protons is about 10^39 or 10^40 times stronger than gravity, and he's pretending they're the same thing. So really, any valid comparison will show Haramein to be out by a factor of 10^39 or 10^40 for just that reason.

10^39 is an absurd amount to be wrong by, to not notice and to carry on when people point it out. The word "silly" doesn't begin to do justice to it.

I hope that's helpful.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Bob for your patience and your valuable contribution to reality. I wanted to post some of my favorite comments for the sake of sanity.

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

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

If space were as dense as Haramein says it is, and you applied Newton's Laws, they are very unambiguous about what would happen: the universe would fall in on itself faster than anyone could see, and with greater force than anything could withstand. It would all be over very, very quickly.

If space were as dense as Haramein says it is and you applied Einstein's Laws, they are very unambiguous about what would happen too. Oddly, it would be the precise opposite. Every tiny piece of space would be ripped open so fast that it would inflate to a billion times its size 900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times every second. (Honestly, that's what it says! I had to keep checking that... but it's true.) Again, it would all be over very, very quickly.

You don't have to believe in the Antarctic landmass if you don't want to. You can dispute and theorise as much as you like. But if you actually wanted to get to the South pole, you'd find that it's bloody difficult unless you get with the Antarctic landmass idea.

Cluelessness is very easy to spot. You'll easily be able to distinguish someone who's clueless about your home town from someone who's not. I wouldn't. If I want to know the difference, I'd either let you tell me which is which (if I trust you) or take the trouble to get to know your home town (if I really want to be sure for myself). But I can be sure of one thing - the two people may sound equally plausible to me, but it will be totally obvious to you if someone is bullshitting.

Bob said...

Thanks :)

It's good to hear from people who are able to hear what I've said - as well as being able to recognise just how ridiculous this whole debate is.

To continue to support Haramein now requires so much denial, such a profound lack of curiosity about the world beyond his stories, so much preoccupation with one's own feelings as the source of all knowledge, and such utter inability to listen to anyone who doesn't share the same narrow prejudices and live in the same reality bubble, it's a source of continual amazement to me that human beings are even capable of it.

But there we are. The human race is a many-splendoured thing.

Anonymous said...

What Haramein describes feels true to me and all the depressed skeptics can write their memorized boring "arguments" all they want... Truth shines.

Bob said...

Yes, it's great for people who don't care about anything in the world beyond their own feelings.

And if calling people names and making things up about them makes you happy, then that must be true too, right? You sound lovely.

Anonymous said...

Bob, I just have to say I have enourmous respect for your patience in dealing with people who believe this garbage Haramein tells and to work it all out and to write it down, even though for anybode with half a background in physics its so obvious that all his blabla is pure nonsense and probably just aimed at making fame and money. I just wish people would use their own minds more...

NABILAC said...

First of all, I do apologize for any mistake, since English it's not my first language.

I've just spent like a crazy hour glued to the screen.
I realize this is an old post, but I've only seen Nassim's 64 videos (8 hours) recently. And I was amazed - I confess.
It's funny like 3 years after of this post, information about him still is short on the internet.
I loved what you wrote, because I was really searching "the other side"...
I still don't have a conclusion, but I must say that - contrarily to some comments I have seen here - I think you have explained very well your point, with lots of details and with some things one can not deny...
However, I still don't have a conclusion about Nassim. I will though, read very careffuly what you have written and maybe comment later. I say "maybe" because I see the last post was made 3 years ago and I don't know if this blog is still active. Another reason for the "maybe" it's that you might be tired of talking about this and maybe this a dead subject for you, which I would respect, of course.
However, if this blog is alive and you are willing to answer, I would like to ask you something:
In these 3 years since the creation of this post, did anything changed? Your opinion is the same? Did Nassim came to be right about something defended back then?
(Excellent blog!)

NABILAC said...

(damn, i just realized that afterall the bog is alive and you have very recente answers. lol. Sorry...well, my questions remains...please don't ask me to read 380 pages of answers :P )

Bob said...

Hi NABILAC. Thanks for your comments.

"In these 3 years since the creation of this post, did anything changed? Your opinion is the same? Did Nassim came to be right about something defended back then?" - no. I'm very open to him being right about something, and I'll be honest if I see anything.

What I have seen is exactly the opposite. Three years ago I saw him as someone who had actually been trying to make real connections with the scientific community but perhaps didn't realise quite how wrong he was. Recently I've seen example after example after example of him being deliberately dishonest. His latest paper (the Quantum Gravity one) is full of deliberate pretence. (It's far, far worse than the Schwarzschild Proton paper, which was just naïve.)

The journal is a pretence, the title he gives himself is a pretence, the title is pretence (there's no quantum physics in the paper, and none of any of the other words in the title either). Almost every line of text in the entire paper is either meaningless or deliberately misleading. And his publicity for it is also deliberately misleading - he claims to have predicted a result that some scientists found. None of it is true.

So there is a difference. He's stopped trying to talk (or listen) to any scientist, and now the only effort he makes is to make it seem impressive to people who don't understand the science, and to sell it.

It's very cynical and very ugly.

Of course, you have to make up your own mind, somehow. But please, try not to be swayed by appearances. Look for genuine content.

Good luck.

NABILAC said...

Hi again, Bob.
"Of course, you have to make up your own mind, somehow" - not an easy task, at least for me it' isn't.
For instance, his talk about the pyramids - I think lots of he is saying makes sense to me. He is not saying who build the pyramids. He just saying there is no proof old Egyptians did it, like scientists tell. Also, the way they were built seems very bad explained for me.
Would you say even his talk about this subject is wrong?

Have you ever tried to confront Nassim with all this? I mean, this is the only place/blog where I found some decent and very good arguments against him. I found this blog after a long search about "the other side" of Nassim...

NABILAC said...

(Sorry for some English mistakes...Damn, I have to start confirming what I have written before sending. I hate errors, even when I am writing in a different language, like now...)

Bob said...

4500 years ago, Egypt was full of people. A remarkable, advanced civilisation - the most advanced in the world at the time, in many many ways. Some pyramids were built in Egypt at this time. The technology required for this was more advanced than what humans were building before, but less advanced than what humans built later.

Which is the more likely explanation. Is it (a) the collective efforts of the remarkable people that we know were there, or (b) someone else, or (c) aliens who could fly across light years of space but couldn't think of anything better to do than putting stones on top of each other?


Bob said...

Yes, I have confronted Nassim. I started by asking very polite questions on his Facebook page. He took the time to give an answer, but it didn't make sense to me and left me with more questions, so I asked more questions, again politely, and he simply got more irritated. None of the questions I asked were addressed.

I also commented on a post on his Facebook page in which he had claimed the work of a certain scientist supported his own work. I suggested that we should ask this scientist if they agree that their work supports Nassim's. Nassim responded by saying it doesn't matter whether they agree or not. I suggested that people should do this to get a second opinion on his work, and he deleted all my comments and all our previous conversations and blocked me from the site.

I think this makes it pretty clear not only that he has no wish to be confronted with anything, but also that he knows the scientists that he claims support his work do not support it at all, and he doesn't want his followers to think this. He knows that he's a fraud.

I have commented on various pages, including on his blog when he had one (all of my comments were deleted). I've made it very clear that he or his representatives can comment here if they would like to set straight anything that I've said. They will only comment in places where I am not permitted to respond.

Search the web for debates between Haramein and people who disagree with him. There are none. He has only one mode of operation, and that is him telling other people things. They either have to go along with him or leave.

NABILAC said...

Starting from the second part - your confrontation with Nassim:
That is indeed strange. More than anything, doesn't fit in his supposed "promotion" of peace and love...
Well, I guess lots of people were rude to him. One can lose his patience...
However, If you approached him with education and good arguments - like I believe you did, judging by this blog - I have to agree with you he is hiding something.
I have to add this: we are talking about Nassim, but as you may already know, some of the things he says don't come from his mind, but from others minds. Others preach the same, as well...I think his biggest mistake is taking something for granted, relying only in the fact that "if that, that and that guys told this, so it must be true". This is terrible science, I know...
So, in conclusion: There are some guys who who tell lies not because they want to, but because they believe it's true, due to their poor research. They are lying but they don't do it on purpose. However, it's your strong belief that Nassim knows some of the things he preaches are completely false but he keeps on telling the world his lies just for his own gain. Is that it?

ABOUT your comments on the Pyramids:
I disagree.
"the more likely explanation" it's not an argument.
Let's go back like 500 years. What would be more likely? Galileo being right about we not being the centre of the world and all the others being wrong, or Galileo being wrong and all the others being right?...

"Honestly" choosing an option just because it's more feasible, it's not good science...I am not saying Aliens did it. Humans could have done it, but those special Humans didn't do it with cooper tools, along with other unbelievable explanations we always heard.
I am not sure if you were being sarcastic about "...but couldn't think of anything better to do than putting stones on top of each other?", but...
1st - What about the "remarkable people"? Couldn't think of anything better to do?
2nd - Do you really believe those "stones on top of each other" had no meaning?

Bob said...

"Nassim knows some of the things he preaches are completely false but he keeps on telling the world his lies just for his own gain. Is that it?" - yup.

""Honestly" choosing an option just because it's more feasible, it's not good science" - that's not entirely true. Science is all about deciding which options are more feasible. But that means feasible after all the evidence is taken very carefully into account, not feasible based on the intuition of someone who hasn't studied it carefully.

Our intuitions about what is 'believable' or 'unbelievable' are not reliable - we would each come to different conclusions. This is why we have science - to reduce our individual biases and hunches and allow the universe to speak for itself.

Putting huge stones on top of each other to make an imposing monument was remarkable at the time, very powerful symbolism, and a very human thing to want to do. Of course it had meaning.

I don't think the pyramid thing is really relevant to Haramein's pretence of being a physicist, which is the topic here. It's another example of him saying whatever crap will excite an audience with anti-establishment prejudices, without caring whether it has any truth to it at all.

NABILAC said...

Well, maybe he found it "feasible after all the evidence is taken very carefully into account,"
What he says about the pyramids others say as well. He is not the only one.
If I look to a tree and I see there a laptop, I can try to make my assumptions of how in hell did the laptop got there. You may refer to that window of that white house which is so close to the tree and you may put the hypothesis: "the laptop was sent through that window". I can say "no. Someone has probably stolen the laptop and hide it there for now". What we are saying could be wrong or right and we will only be sure when that witness comes along to say "It was me. I was doing a practical joke to a friend of mine". On the pyramids subject, I think lot of what is being told it's still based on the "before the witness statement"; lots of it it's said because it's convenient...
I apologize for the little off-topic, but honestly of all the things Haramein speaks about this is the thing I am more interested in.
Anyway, time to stop. We could be here forever.
Thank you very much for your excellent article and more importantly: thanks for the clever and civilized way of arguing. It's not easy nowadays to find someone with whom we can have an intelligent conversation without becoming Neanderthals...ehheh
Take care.

Bob said...

"Taking all the evidence into account" is very difficult and painstaking work. It's extremely clear from Haramein's attitude to physics that he has no interest in that - he just makes things up.

There are vast bodies of information and observation and discovery out there, built up by thousands of people over hundreds of years, regarding the pyramids. The people who devote their lives to studying it deeply are archaeologists and anthropologists. If you want to get any kind of perspective on that body of knowledge, you should look to them, not your personal hunches or intuitions based on a few ideas you've come across, and definitely not narcissistic New Age cult leaders like Haramein or people with books/dvds to sell.

If you were to stand before the world community of archaeologists and tell them that all they've ever done is decided on a story out of convenience, I don't think they'd be impressed.

It's easy to be dismissive of things when you haven't found out how deep they go. (You can find out how deep Haramein goes quite easily by continually questioning and testing the things he says - and he's shallow as a puddle in the mud.) So find yourself some archaeologists and quiz them.

You could start here.

Anonymous said...

This blogger is obviously a Jewish shill. Nassim, although big on his own ego, has an open mind and is questioning the current incomplete paradigm. Even if it turns out he's incorrent or doesn't have the whole picture, he's certainly trying to advance the field rather than pointlessly defend the old dogma. He's trying to unite the spiritual and the physical. Seems like a good guy to me.

Bob said...

Haramein is fine for people who want stories to suit their preferences and prejudices, my friend.

Are you even aware how much of your comment is fantasy?

If you just want to make shit up, and associate with other people who make shit up, and not even be aware that you're doing it, then I heartily recommend him for you. Of course he'll seem like a good guy to you :)

Anonymous said...

LIfe is fantasy my friend. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. Emptiness can have structure. Haramein is adding a fun little jaunt to the Heart Sutra of Buddhism. Old hat really. Western scientific material textbook 'education' and subsequent material observation is just one way of thinking/educating, and never even questions or answers our own being or consciousness. There are many paths to the same well. Don't sweat it, Bob.

Bob said...

I lived as a Buddhist for ten years. Let's talk Dharma :)

I'm not disagreeing with anything in the Heart Sutra.

If I claimed that physics explained the Heart Sutra, that would make me a fool or a liar. Physics does nothing of that sort. Physics is concerned with the aspect of the world that consistently presents itself as being physical. There is no conflict here.

When Haramein claims his theories are physics, he is a fool or a liar. They aren't physics, they're stories.

If you don't understand or care about physics, then why pretend to know better than someone who does? It's like claiming that Polish poetry is all nonsense without being able to speak Polish. It's just silly.

Haramein clearly thinks the world of it, and wants the world to think he's doing science. It is a lie.

I'd encourage you to let go of your prejudices against scientists. They are human beings, often inspired, often searching as deeply as they can for genuine understanding about the physical universe. The physical universe to them is as beautiful as being and consciousness might be to you. They are dedicated to getting themselves out of the way and finding out about the universe on its own terms, not making it up. It's a noble quest. Let them explore.

I don't disagree that Haramein seems like a decent guy if you don't look beneath the surface or ask too many questions about his claims.

And I know that you haven't done this.

All the best.

Kitty K said...

I like your critique. Its not bad. However, I have issues with one of the segments

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

What causes the universe to expand in your view?....I find that Nassim's explanation atleast makes more sense than what you've writen. Its logical that something should contract as another expands, even if its not visible. Am sure that force, if ever discovered, will be measurable.

Patrick (Not that one...) said...

Hahaha, wow... I cannot believe that you've been at this for so long and still manage to approach the nonsense with this level of tact. To be totally honest, I haven't actually read past the end of the 2011 posts (yet). I got through the end of the first page of comments, filled with surety that the"debate" would surely have fizzled off long ago and that my hopes that you would actually see this comment would be near zero because of it only to find that there was ANOTHER page running right to the present! I had originally planned to simply laud your tact and patience, but this is just ridiculous! You've put a staggering amount of care into this, and it's simply awesome.

Now, like I said, I haven't read everything and as I've been at this for a couple of hours now... it's simply not going to happen tonight. However I will be back to finish up tomorrow and who knows, maybe I'll even join in to some degree, but I couldn't bring myself to go to sleep without letting you know what an amazing job I think you've done here.

So until tomorrow, all I have to say which bears any relevance is that, Bob...

You, sir, are the man. :).

Bob said...

Thanks Patrick, that's good to hear.

I'm not sure I'd recommend reading all the comments on here :)

What I've noticed, though, is that most people who comment - even some of the most antagonistic ones - are genuinely interested in the universe and how it works, what we think we know about it and how we know it.

It's great that people want to question and challenge these things, and that they don't automatically trust what people claim are scientific facts. Some have been tested and tested and tested and are solid as a rock, but some are paper-thin and flimsy, and it's not always easy to see which is which if you don't see all the work going on behind the scenes. Understanding the universe is crucial to our sense of being human, and if we genuinely want to know about it, that's a noble thing and I think it deserves to be treated with respect.

If someone clearly doesn't want to understand the universe but just wants to force their silly uninformed opinions on other people, that's a different matter. But even then, many people seem to take this attitude when underneath it all they want to know more, they're just a little mistrustful. I wish I had more patience with them.

Kitty K's question above is a great example of a thoughtful challenge. It's a brilliant question, and I will certainly try to reply to it when I can give it the time it deserves.

Thanks again!

Bob said...

Hi Kitty K.

Thanks for your thoughts and your questions.

"What causes the universe to expand in your view?" - every piece of cosmological evidence we have now points to the fact that the universe as we know it started out unimaginably hot, unimaginably tiny and dense, and expanding extremely quickly. Once a universe sets off expanding like this, nothing is needed to keep it expanding. It will keep expanding through its own momentum.

If that seems unintuitive, imagine hurling yourself into space fast enough to overcome the gravitational pull of the Earth and the Solar System. Nothing would be needed to keep you moving out into the galaxy. In space, once things start moving apart, they tend to keep going.

So there is no force necessary to keep the universe expanding.

But why did the universe set out expanding in the first place, then? - The only honest answer to this question is that we don't know. Many brilliant cosmologists have suggested ideas, but they are all only ideas. None would claim to have significant evidence or logical deduction behind any of them.

My personal view is that if there is no compelling evidence for an answer to that question, then I don't want to settle for anyone's stories. If the honest answer is that nobody knows, then that's the answer I want. Where there is mystery, let that mystery shine untamed!

(We do now know that there is something causing the universe’s expansion to accelerate, but that’s another question. The universe would still be expanding now even without this.)

"I find that Nassim's explanation at least makes more sense than what you've writen." - What is Nassim's explanation? I haven't seen one. I've seen him talk about it, but not really explain anything. Can you point me to a video and a time so I can see what you mean?

"Its logical that something should contract as another expands" - I don't think it is especially logical. You might mean that it's intuitive, or that common sense suggests it, or that it feels like this is what should happen. The problem is that our experience, what seems logical to us, is very limited. The laws of nature that we're familiar with in our everyday lives are not a good guide to how a universe works.

If we want to know about the universe, we have a choice. We can choose to believe that the universe should work according to what seems right to us, what 'resonates' with us. This is what Haramein would like us to do.

Or we can accept that the universe is far grander than our preconceptions, and we can make it our goal to stand aside, get our intuitions and our preferences out of the way, and look and listen as carefully and as devotedly as is possible to what the universe is telling us, and to understand it on its own terms, not our own.

That is my goal, and it's the goal of every cosmologist and physicist I know. Not everyone will have the time or the inclination to follow that path through all of its mind-bending revelations, but it's open to everyone who wants it. If you don't want to embark on the study of observational cosmology yourself, there are thousands of people who have done so and are doing so. You can talk with them. They’re human beings, some of them deeply inspired. Perhaps you'll find one who you can trust with your curiosity. And I mean trust not to tell you what you want to hear, or even tell you what will seem right to you (which is oh so tempting), but to pass onto you honestly what they know and what they do not know about what is out there.

It may be that all you want is someone who’ll present a version of the universe that's palatable to you and that you find compelling. If that's what you want then perhaps Haramein is your man. If you want more than that, if you want honesty, if you want depth, then he is not.

However you want to choose, I wish you luck.

Wendy Langer said...

A little light relief: http://youtu.be/Zszxeoa94g0

Bob said...

Ah, Wendy. That's perfect.

What's great is that they're talking about every clichéd pretentious nutball out there, and still every sentence they say describes Haramein to a tee. It shows how little there is about him that's original.

He's exactly the same as every other production-line pseudoscience tosser.

Hey ho :)

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 484   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

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