Friday, October 13, 2017

The reappearing Nassim Haramein posts, and an update on his science claims

Last week I received an intimidating letter from a lawyer on behalf of Nassim Haramein demanding that I take down some of my old blog posts, which freaked me out. So I took them down.

This week, having had time to recover from the panic and get my senses back, I've decided to reinstate all my blog posts relating to Nassim Haramein, including the original one and the 948-comment discussion underneath it.

It's unnerving to find yourself on the receiving end of legal threats and accusations. It's certainly a first for me. But when it's as patently ridiculous as what was emailed to me last week on Haramein's behalf, I've realised that it shouldn't bother me, and it would be unethical to go along with it.

I'll leave last week's post up because of what it says about the level of petty bullying and control-freakery on the part of Haramein and his institution.

Haramein is a public figure making and personally profiting from scientific claims in public, claims that I regard as deeply misleading. If he were genuinely entitled to legal protection from having his claims called into question, the world would be a dark place indeed. That certainly isn't how respectable science has ever operated or should ever operate, and it isn't a world I intend to inhabit.

So now that I've been prompted to focus on this stuff all over again, and as we haven't had a post on his science claims in more than seven years, it'd be a shame to pass up on the opportunity for a little update.

Some resources to shed a bit of light on a few of his papers and other offerings:

Analysis of Haramein & Val Baker's 2016 paper "The Electron and the Holographic Mass Solution", in which the mass of the electron is found to be equal to the mass of the electron (!) but the authors believe they've discovered something new.

Analysis of Haramein's 2013 paper "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass" and his false claim to have precisely predicted the muonic charge radius of the proton, frequently touted as his greatest scientific achievement.

(In fact he fell for a numerological coincidence between a number that any physicist would recognise as four times the reduced Compton wavelength, known for nearly a century, and a charge radius from a 2010 measurement that he already knew, then claimed it as a prediction when the same group re-did the same measurement. 

That particular paper by Haramein gets top marks and a gold star for pretentiousness and buzzwords. I've never seen a paper claim to be utilising so many fashionable branches of physics in their work at the same time, even in a parody. The contrast with what is actually being calculated is rather comical.)

Analysis of Haramein's 2010 paper "The Schwarzschild Proton" in which he calculates the mass of a proton to be 855 million tonnes. Which of course it isn't.

Notes on Haramein's misleading TEDx talk.

A record of what happened when someone set up a Wikipedia page presenting Haramein as a physicist.

A record of what happened when someone set up a Wikipedia page about the film portraying his the illustrious research career he wants us to believe he has had. When a copy of the film temporarily appeared on Youtube, here's what the documentary enthusiasts of Reddit made of it.

Haramein's latest venture is selling naff crystals for $1200 each, making a slew of pseudoscience claims for them. To state the blindingly obvious: if he genuinely wants to be seen as a groundbreaking scientist rather than a scam artist, this is an odd way to market himself. He may as well stamp the word SCAM in giant red letters across his website.

It's hard to find any discussions of Haramein's work in a scientific context. (There's a very simple reason: it isn't science. Scientists can see this.) For informal scientific comment, here are the full search results for his name on the four big Reddit science forums: Physics, AskPhysics, Science and AskScience. You might spot a pattern. It's not subtle.

Of the dozen or so papers he's written in the past 15 years, only the 2013 paper has passed anything like formal peer review in a physics journal. So does that make it legitimate science? Well, here's what remains of the Wikipedia entry for the publishers of that journal. (For anyone not familiar with predatory publishing, here's an article showing how low the bar is for these journals.)

Has any of Haramein's work been recognised by the scientific community? We can search for his work in the international repositories of trusted physics content that physicists actually turn to. Each of these contains a million or more academic papers and other documents. We find...

Nothing under "Haramein" on the enormous CERN document server.

Nothing under "Haramein" on the huge InSPIRE high energy physics information system.

Not even anything on Cornell's gigantic arXiv preprint server. Pretty much every physics graduate has work on here, and some undergraduates. For work of the significance Haramein claims, this is a very low bar. But no.

This is what we have after well over a decade of exceptionally high-profile claims to be actively involved in revolutionising physics as we know it.

When things are this bad, there's only one place to go, and that's to resort to massive conspiracy theories. There must be powerful academic forces at work, ensuring that your self-evident revolutionary genius is silenced! Maybe if you sue some obscure blogger, all the critics will melt away and the science community will take you seriously! But no, there is no conspiracy. And anyone who knows how to google can see how not silenced you are.

This is just what naturally happens when a competent scientific community encounters incompetent, narcissistic, pseudoscientific pretence. 

It is considered, and it is dismissed.

It's not complicated.

A personal note: 

(I wrote the note below 18 months ago, but never published it. This seems a good place for it.)

As a physicist, I love encountering novel and unorthodox scientific ideas. I have no prior motive to push against anything new or different. I never wish to pass criticism on something I don't understand. I would never dismiss anyone's ideas as bogus without trying my absolute utmost to explain exactly why, as honestly and as openly as I can.

If you have a deep and joyous faith in Haramein, then this place isn't for you. I have no wish to prevent Haramein doing what he does, and I have no wish to prevent his faithful followers from enjoying it in peace. There is no need for you to defend your faith because it is not under attack. Please move along.

If you are curious about science, and want to find out more, I hope you'll explore some of the things I'm shining a light on, and discuss in the comments if you wish. Do let me know if you think I've been unfair or got anything wrong.


Anonymous said...

""the absurd level of petty bullying and control-freakery on the part of Haramein and his institution."" or we can say ""the absurd level of petty bullying and control-freakery on the part of mainstream and his institution.""

Anonymous said...

what about the numerical similarity ??

in your critique about the 2016 paper "The Electron and the Holographic Mass Solution",
there is simple numerical similarity and you critiques that

in your critique about the 2013 paper "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass",
that is go beyond the numerical similarity and you critiques that too

so can you provide a slightly less blurry position...?

Anonymous said...

in the section 2 of your critique about the 2013 paper "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass",

"it clearly not a new quantity"

the new is that torque and Coriolis forces have been added to Albert Einstein's equation field equations
with the Schwarzschild metric who is a solution of Einstein's equations.

Bob said...

The "numerical similarity" is not physics. As I explained in the notes in the links.

The paper contains nothing about metrics, nothing about Coriolis forces and nothing about torque.

It's a PR exercise to impress people who have no clue how to read physics papers or what the words mean but like to pontificate about them anyway. Isn't it.

Anonymous said...

in the section 3 of your critique about the 2013 paper "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass",

"this is the reduced Compton wavelength"

indeed, The Schwarzschild Proton paper,
the calculations to derive the gravitational force of a proton
were somewhat loosely made as a first order approximation utilizing
the Compton length of the proton, instead of a precise charge radius.

Anonymous said...

@ Bob

so your critique is not about physics

by the fact as you said that

"" the "numerical similarity" is not physics.""

Anonymous said...

you say
"The paper contains nothing about metrics, nothing about Coriolis forces and nothing about torque"

but your critique is based on the Schwarzschild equation
(you have even made a historic...)

isnt it..?

Bob said...

I welcome disagreement, but could you please show some sign of scientific literacy or maturity or willingness to engage in human communication? Any of those would do.

Anonymous said...

@ Bob

Welcome...I welcome disagreement too,

it s an opportunity to open constructive not destructive debat
and give way to the two protagonist of leisure to express his ideas clearly
in a mutual respect despite the apparente opposition

isnt it

Bob said...

If I could tell what points you were trying to make, I'd be happy to discuss them.

Anonymous said...

@ Bob

thank you for your attention and your time

in order to clarify the debate here

we can perhaps try in this way:

can therefore clearly and succinctly expose your disagreement with the proposed theories ...

Bob said...

You're commenting on a blog that is full of explanations of why Haramein's claims are misleading and false by asking me to explain why Haramein's claims are misleading and false. Sorry, but I don't see the point of this.

Anonymous said...

@ bob


it was as indicated above to clarify the debate ....
but if you prefer as you said:
"If I could say what points you were trying to make, I'd be happy to discuss it."

in fact, I would like you to enlighten me on your position regarding
on the holographic principle and some of its applications

assuming that the proton is roughly spherical, you can calculate a volume,
which related to the renormalized vacuum density matches
also the proton with the Schwarzschild metric

the holographic principle can be applied here also
this one dealing with INFORMATION
the limitation of which is a function of the surface

from then the notion of mass experienced
can be likened to a limit rate of expression of information
which is a function of the ratio between volume and surface

Bob said...

There's a big problem here, which is that you're talking complete nonsense about things you don't understand.

If you're not aware that you don't understand what the holographic principle is about, then I genuinely have no idea what I can say that would be helpful, other than to try to make you aware of this.

If you are aware that you don't understand it but you want to understand it, then you could work towards taking a graduate course in quantum gravity or string theory.

If you're not aware that you don't understand it then you're stuck, there's nothing I can do.

Human communication requires a shared understanding of a common language before it can begin. If one person is talking bollocks but thinks they're communicating, then I don't see any scope for a conversation.

It's even more pointless given that nothing of quantum gravity is relevant to understanding any of Haramein's papers, because none of Haramein's papers involve any quantum gravity.

Anonymous said...

Your brief analyses have been discredited each time Bobathon.

A response to Bobathons "A Brief Analysis of Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass”:

A response to Bobathons Analysis of Haramein's 2010 paper "The Schwarzschild Proton":

I will find the link for the response to your analysis of Haramein & Val Baker's 2016 paper "The Electron and the Holographic Mass Solution".

Anonymous said...


""Human communication requires a shared understanding of a common language before it can begin

and a minimum of good will, of respect, and mutual listening

but I see that these qualities fail you

your position reflects the current mainstream position

arrogant proud closed destroyer

Anonymous said...


Bobathon, an unknown blogger

He started openly following the work of Nassim Haramein in February 2010 declaring:

"I've been impressed by the rise to internet fame of Nassim Haramein. He's lauded as a multi-disciplinary thinker, as a scientist, as an inspirational speaker, and as director of research of The Resonance Project."


""Bobathon is active on the internet through his blog and social media (twitter, YouTube, reddit etc.). He claims to be a physicist interested in quantum theory. However,
his main activity on the internet appears to be talking about Nassim Haramein's work.""

For the last 7 years, Bobathon is evading the explanations and clarifications given to him publicly about his misunderstanding of the theory. He was also evading any public debate with Nassim Haramein based on his claim that Nassim Haramein knows nothing about physics. He continues to blog about Nassim and is very active in publicly criticizing Nassim Haramein’s work wherever he can on the internet

The more active period was back in 2010, where it seems as though Bobathon would sign in to a forum just because there was an open topic on Nassim Haramein.

In 2016, Bobathon reappeared, this time on YouTube for the TEDx talk by Nassim Haramein.

Pursuing this action in 2017, Bobathon is now active in the destruction of Nassim Haramein’s Wikipedia page.


Why would someone be so interested in slandering the work of another without any space for discussion over a period of 7 years?


Bob said...

Why are you posting this gibberish?

All of my posts have space for discussion. I've never evaded debate here. There are nearly 2000 comments on my blog, and many of them are discussions and debates. You haven't even looked.

The reason I've been criticising Haramein's work is because it's false, because it pretends to be physics and because I care. If the public is being misled about physics on a massive scale, I care about that. I can see very clearly that he's misleading people. What kind of person wouldn't say anything?

What kind of person would feel entitled to NOT have their theories robustly questioned?

It's not true that I was actively destroying Haramein's page. I initially argued for it to be kept, but that it should reflect reality rather than being a PR page for Haramein. Other wikipedia editors gave lots of reasons why it should be deleted, and eventually I agreed.

Come on. Grow up. This is pathetic.

Anonymous said...

your censorship and your actions preventing me from commenting on your post as well as the non acceptance of opening of debate concretized by the answer of a part of the team of haramein to your critics shows me that in fact you are in the inability to defend your position in front of them ..... in order to start a real debate

Bob said...

You have 12 comments under this post. They're vacuous and childish. You're not being censored, you infantile idiot.

You claim that I give no space for discussion for 7 years on a blog that has very obviously hosted a discussion for 7 years, and you want to be taken seriously?

You claim that I'm not accepting a debate with Haramein's team when a moment's effort would show that I responded extensively on the site you linked to as soon as I was aware of it.

I get that you're eager to portray me in a particular light despite all the blatant evidence to the contrary. If you're into that kind of silly game-playing, then that's fine – whatever floats your boat. I don't see any point to it, I don't have time for it and I don't sympathise with your sense of entitlement to use my blog as a platform for it.

Anonymous said...



why, as a physicist criticizing you would not go to discuss
with the physicists you criticize ...?

and start a real debate about physics with the physicists

I do not see how this request is idiotic and childish ...

Bob said...

My comments are right there on the site you linked to. You can see them. What is wrong with you?

If you want to offer me an open invitation to participate in a discussion, then I'll treat you as an adult. That isn't what you did.

Once again: I'm not interested in your sense of entitlement to have me host your views, or your sense of entitlement to have me contribute to anything.

I don't owe you, Haramein, or any of his other acolytes anything. Any more insistence that I have to play by your rules will be deleted and I'll suspend comments on this post. I don't have time for this.

It's kind of fascinating that so many of Haramein's fans are quite so childish, and so oblivious of the falseness of their assertions even when it's right under their noses. Whatever could it mean.

Anonymous said...

actually you do not owe me anything

and I have no rights to you ..


it can be percieve as an open invitation to participate in a discussion

but as you pointed out, .. i have no rights neither to you nor to the haramein team ...


it seems to me, however, that this confrontation of opinion whatever the outcome
would be a step further towards a scientific clarification of the situation
profitable to the entire community.

Bob said...

The scientific situation is pretty clear to me. Haramein's ideas didn't have any scientific content when I first encountered them, and I've seen no scientific content from him in the intervening 7 years.

I'm open to being shown to be mistaken, and I will listen attentively for signs of scientific competence, but in the absence of those, I disagree with the suggestion that there is a scientific discussion to be had.

There are people who disagree with my view, and I'm happy to let them disagree. If some people prefer to go along with the mouthpieces of Haramein's institution who claim it is physics, despite the total absence of any interest in Haramein's ideas anywhere in the academic physics community, and despite the fact that none of his writings have ever been recognised as part of the worldwide body of physics literature, then that's up to them.

I'll answer questions and I'll listen, so long as I have the free time, but until someone presents something with some scientific content, I won't be going along with the conceit that there's a scientific discussion to be had.

What I see is material that looks like physics to non-physicists, a lot of strongly-held opinions, a charismatic salesman who has founded a wealthy institution whose success relies entirely on the myth that he is a competent physicist, and the employees and fans who cluster around him.

It's all about sales and fame and his brand and his image. None of it is about competence in physics. Which is why he hasn't once attempted to discuss the physics with me; instead he has used his institution to hire a legal team to send me intimidating letters and threats to have me take down my attempts to explain my perspective on his work.

Bullying and intimidation in response to legitimate informal criticism is not a sign of scientific competence, it's a sign of a businessman trying to protect his brand, or a control freak attempting to chill any dissent.

It's not ok.

Anonymous said...

i can understand your point of view .. regarding bullying ....

but the problem seems to me WIDER ...

indeed, there is a kind of dialogue of deafness and censorship that one speaks of haramein;

some renowned science forums do not even allow to post on this topic ..

wikipedia does not fully take its responsibilities by not classifying once and for all in a catogory or the other, leaving a doubt floating

why not go after your approach and once and for all finish with the public controversy that really exists .... ??

Bob said...

Of course science forums don't want posts on Haramein's ideas. It isn't science. They want to talk about science, not some misleading junk that a bunch of non-scientists are convinced is science.

And Wikipedia isn't there to describe the myths of some self-proclaimed physicist with a cult following, when it's clear that none of his work that has had any scientific impact. The fact that his fans think he's the next Einstein doesn't mean anyone else has to take him seriously.

I don't think debates ever settle public controversies. In fact, they polarise people even more. Let those who want to believe believe. I don't have anything to gain or anything to prove by winning them over. I'm not running for office or selling anything.

My perspective on his work is here for anyone who cares to look, and it doesn't do any harm to anyone who don't want to know. That's the way I prefer it.

Anonymous said...

why do not demolish themselves even theories of haramein ....

why wikipedia does not take its responsibilities and class it not once and for all ....

Bob said...

Wikipedia has been very clear and very consistent with regard to what Haramein should be classed as. He's a non-notable pseudoscientist.

They've taken their responsibilities very seriously.

Anonymous said...

on this page

(where you appear 12 times .. in favor of deletion)

they mention indeed "" non-notable pseudoscientist. ""

but on wikipedia even we read "" The notion is quite subjective because the notable does not necessarily have "title" attesting to its "notability". ""

.. ..

it's quite ambiguous it seems to me ...

Anonymous said...

... thx anyway,....
i understand better the problematic...
and your active role

Bob said...

Cheers, Anonymous

Anonymous said...


Bob said...

Ha, I approve of your choice of beer :)

Anonymous said...

...hmmm you seems knwo what it s good,.. in this case.. ;;)))

Anonymous said...


You are the stalwart hero that physics needs. Please don't ever let Haramein's sycophantic half wits stop you doing what you do.


Bob said...

Thanks Anastasio :)

system trader77 said...


Thanks very kindly for your work on Haramein. You have saved me much time.

Hopefully his lawyers know better than to try anything as stupid as filing a lawsuit. If they do you can count on me to contribute to defense fund.

Just by the way my home insurer added blogging insurance to my policy for a very nominal fee. Something to look into.

Best regards,
System Trader

Bob said...

Thanks :)

Freedom Martin said...

I’m fascinated by how loyal Haramein’s followers are, such that after being presented this sort of solid proof that Nassim hasn’t broken any ground or even made any sense, they all respond with ad hominem fallacies! Did somebody say cult?

Bob said...

Hi, Freedom Martin

I agree. I think most people would consider the signs of Nassim's lack of scientific credibility after all this time pretty solid.

Unless you're someone who's already invested a lot in the idea that he is who he says he is. As Carl Sagan explained, it's probably too much to ask of those people to back out, especially when it's so easy and so much more comfortable to blame "the mainstream" and label everyone else with that.

Unknown said...

Hi Bob, would it be possible for you to post this letter here on your blog? I would love to see it - would love to see what kinds of lawyers put together something like this, or would put their reputation behind a crank like Haramein. Intimidating bloggers from speaking out is highly unethical, if based on frivolous arguments; these guys should be sanctioned, in my humble opinion.

Bob said...

Hi, Unknown,

The lawyers who sent me the intimidating letters last October were these guys. They seem to have made the news since that time I heard from them, and not in a good way. He certainly knows how to choose a classy team!

Your humble opinion might turn out to be right on the mark.

Since then Haramein has switched to a UK internet law firm, who have kept up the threat of legal action without being quite so obnoxious. Lawyers gotta loy, I don't blame them. I can't expect them to take any interest in the physics beyond what their client tells them, so I can't expect them to appreciate the need for posts like these.

It's pretty unpleasant being on the receiving end of this, though. And – without going into details – really f***ing creepy.

Rob Ryan said...

Way way back in the day I added a comment or two on your incredibly patient and thorough debunking of the fraudster Nassim Haramein. I pointed out the tangible harm being done by him and his organization by diverting the funds of well-meaning but ill informed (albeit, possibly lazy) people to his specious ideas. Google “Magrav Technology” for one example. “Einstein with a twist” my a**.

Anyway, legal threats are a new low even by Haramein’s standards (to the extent that they exist) and it’s unacceptable that a light in the wilderness of pseudoscientific bulls**t would be extinguished by such a low ploy. You can count on me for a contribution in a gofundme or other crowdfunding site or a direct contribution to any defense fund should the need arise.

Bob said...

Thanks for your support, Rob.

atif xhaikh said...

Thanks for sharing this useful info..

Ian P said...

Hi Bob, don't know where to begin. I find this fascinating, hilarious and as you said, " f**king creepy. While I applaud your vigor, I think the believers believe, not because they want to but because they have to. People need answers to the big questions and god/religion used to fill that void. Quacks and charlatans like him are dime a dozen and suckers a plenty. I thank you for your wonderful comments and dedication but please don't lose any sleep over it. Take care mate! Cheers

Bob said...

Thank Ian. You're right about believers. I can't pretend not to find them frustrating, but I have no trouble with them really. I've tried to express that sentiment many times, including in the note at the end of this post.

I feel it's necessary to counter any assertions they make about their beliefs being scientific, though, even if it is unlikely to change what they think. It doesn't invalidate them as individuals for there to be different perspectives out there contradicting theirs, backed up with good reasoning, to give others something to think about.

When their response comes from a sense of entitlement to have critics silenced, personally discredited or intimidated, and a resolve to go to such great lengths to do this, then it does get creepy.

All Haramein has to do is note that there are bound to be people in the world who disagree profoundly with what he's doing – nobody important, just bloggers giving no credentials and no sense of authority – and then get on with unambiguously demonstrating something implied by his claims. As his claims are so all-encompassing and revolutionary, this shouldn't be hard. That would put his critics firmly in their place.

Taking legal action can do a lot of damage to people's lives, if that's what he wants to achieve, but it's hardly going to make him look like less of a pseudoscientist cliché or turn his nonsense into physics.

It is unnerving, but I'm trying not to lose sleep :)

Qwertyisobsolete said...

Bob, assuming you believe there is more than one universe, do you think that you and Nassim could be best friends in another universe? ;p. Haha. I am willing to bet some of those anonymous comments were from Nassim himself. I think he was trying to engage you a debate via comments. Would you entertain the idea of a on stage debate if the trip was all expenses paid? I would pay ppv to see that.

Qwertyisobsolete said...

Nassim the “entertainer” vs Bob the “scientist”. Battle for the cosmos. Featuring conor mcgregor as mediator. One night only. $49.99. I will promote it if you’re on board.

Bob said...

There's no battle here.

If there's some charismatic showman of a scientist out there who wants to duke it out on stage with that charismatic showman of a pseudoscientist, then good luck to them. It could be quite entertaining!

Sadly, most scientists don't fit that description. I certainly don't :) Scientists are selected for their scientific competence, not their showmanship.

Unlike Haramein, I'm not desperate for a battle or trying to win anything or to stop anyone from doing anything. I just want to ensure that anyone searching for a scientific perspective on his ideas can find one, because I think that's a good thing.

Anyone who thinks I'm missing the point has always been welcome to discuss it here, including Haramein and his team.

Competent dissent is the best friend of science, but the worst enemy of pseudoscience. Early on, I joined some of their forums and found myself barred and had my contributions deleted. Obviously I won't be doing that again.

The other problem is that I don't find his stuff interesting! I did for a few days, eight years ago. Most scientists aren't going to engage with that stuff for more than a passing raise-of-the-eyebrows: something along the lines of "whoa, this looks interesting! Wait, is this guy totally incompetent? Oh, he is. Oh well."

I like discussing things with people who are genuinely interested in things, though. Whether they agree or disagree with me. I've always liked that.

I guess that answers your question, at least in this universe.

Daddy DrunkJunk said...

Hi Bob,

One year ago, I was commenting on your blog, and I'm glad to see that up to this day, the blog is still alive and you managed to keep being this patient and dedicated to explain how fraudulent Nassim Haramein is.

Believe it or not, in my previous comment I was speaking of a friend who's neck-deep into NH's mumbo jumbo, and still is, even after I tried presenting him with all the evidences.
Evidences he didn't even try to understand or even listen to entirely (he anyway mixes it with reptilian crap, crop-cirles, etc...)

Even if that guy is probably lost, today I'd still like to add another brick to the wall by sharing something fishy in NH's maths that someone on reddit pointed out. I hope this can still help a few people out there realise this is just very subtle crap.
Discussion here.

In his paper "A Scaling Law For Organized Matter", page 4 (and this has been co-written with E. Rauscher, this is the funniest point), he states :

'10^W + 10+R = 10^8 so that 10^W+R = 10^8'

For the sake of the experiment I'll use different numbers than those 'thegoodguy' plugged in.

Let's say W = 2 so R = 6
This would mean :
10^2 = 100
10^6 = 1 000 000
10^2+10^6 = 1 000 100
Except 10^8 = 100 000 000 which ain't equal to 1 000 100.

It doesn't even take to know how any logarithm around work to understand this part is no mathematical equality but only VERY BAD MATHS.
That's not how exponents work (it's 9th grade knowledge, at least the equivalent of 9th grade here in France...)
I went throught literrary courses mainly, and now I should believe someone even I can spot mistakes in his maths to unify GR and QM ? What the... ?

This is supposed to be one of his 'fundamental work' and it has indeed been criticized for years, but never corrected, seriously, here you go for intellectual dishonesty on his part IMO.

I think it says it all, or am I wrong somewhere ?

Best regards, please keep up with the good work, sir, thank you for this blog being such an awesome and detailed database about this damn crackpot (I totally endorse my opinion of this man being a manipulative crank, no issue, for those who'd ask).

Bob said...

Thanks DDJ!

I hadn't seen that post, but I had seen the error, and I pointed it out on Reddit here. Everything you've said there is correct.

The incompetence this illustrates, from people claiming to be at the cutting edge of physics, is comical.

What's truly amazing about this is that, unbelievably, what you've outlined here only covers half of the errors in that single sentence. The full sentence from the paper is:

Hence we have 10^ω = 10^(-R) + 10^8 or 10^ω + 10^R = 10^8 so that 10^(ω+R) = 10^8.

Look closely: not only is the "so that" part incompetent nonsense, the earlier "or" part is also incompetent nonsense as well.

If the two errors cancelled somehow, you could almost forgive it, but of course they don't.

I get that something like this isn't obvious to a casual reader, but once an error like this is pointed out, I think people with even the most basic grasp of mathematics can see how obviously wrong it is.

What some people may not appreciate is how blatant this is to anyone who works with mathematics for a living. Mistakes can get into papers, sure, but not mistakes like this. It's a massive blaring howler. You simply never see anything like that in genuine physics papers.

Two in a single sentence!

Daddy DrunkJunk said...

Wait, my maths courses go way back in time but, if I understand properly, it should be :

10^ω = 10^(-R) + 10^8 or 10^ω - 10^(-R) = 10^8

Weirdly enough, when I was a kid I learnt that a number changes sign when moved to the other side of an equation, like with :
8 = 5 + 3
8 - 5 = 3
10^1 + 10^2 = 110
10^1 = 110 - 10^2 (and not '110 + 10^(-²)' ...)

Even with that correction, there doesn't seem to be anything to solve anyway, or is it me ?

Thank you, I didn't even see that, this is not 9th or 10th grade anymore, it's childsplay level.

And you're right, these are simple enough for anybody with the slightest insight in maths and enough intellectual honesty to understand, which makes them the most useful because of how crystal clear they are.

Please people, note that this is utterly retarded coming from anyone pretending to have mastered maths and physics and solved the most critical scientific questions of our time, it's not a matter of 'thinking outside the box' or 'making a revolution' in any field, it's just plain bad maths coming from one special untrustworthy nugget...

I can't believe his fans asked of you so many times that you publicly display your degrees and credentials in physics (I've read most of the comments on this blog I believe) when 1. they don't care about him not having any of said credentials, which is as asymmetric as an argument can be and 2. it's not even required to debunk his pile of pseudoscientific bovine waste as even I, whose mathematical knowledge doesn't go much further than what we've seen, can understand them if pointed out.

That's only mathematical intimidation, not maths, hence it doesn't get any recognition by mainstream science.

The work of a shameless snake oil salesman.

Rational thinking and critical mind send their best regards to you sir !

Bob said...

Exactly, yes.


Anonymous said...
Cant find your "point by point" response to their "point by point response". Where are your "debunking vidéos" ? I d like to see someone dismantle the entire theory, not just some random moments in an 8 hour long conference in 2003...
And i have a question for you : If you dont aggree with nassims theory, do you agree with the actual quantum theories postulating that the cat in the box is in a state of superposition until observed ? You find that more "scientific"?

Bob said...

I didn't think there were any points in that thing that needed responding to. It's pretty silly.

If you're interested in learning about quantum physics, I recommend this excellent set of lectures. It's entertaining, and takes you straight into the paradoxical nature of the subject, without holding any punches.

(I know you're not interested in learning about anything, you just came here to snark like a stroppy teenager. But maybe you could check it out when you grow up. I highly recommend it to anyone else.)

Daddy DrunkJunk said...

Ahahahaha that's so precious I'm going to bookmark it.

So a year ago, they were basically admitting they tried to take legal action against Bob (for those who doubted and needed proof).

Also, this was written by Amira Val Baker and Olivier Alirol, both working under Haramein.

I guess it says it all about the orientation and intellectual honesty of that article you shared, Anonymous.

And by the way, where did this legal procedure go ?

Nowhere, probably because Haramein would have to demonstrate he can do more than misused physical concepts and flawed middle school maths.
Which he cannot.

People mixing up criticism with personal attack just because they don't like being told they're wrong, such an old story...

(Also because they don't like their marketting plan for DVDs and magic cristals to be exposed, happens too)

Post a Comment

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