Friday, October 13, 2017

The reappearing Nassim Haramein posts

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 absurd 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 pitiful 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 useful links to shed some light on a few of his papers:

Analysis of Haramein & Val Baker's 2016 paper "The Electron and the Holographic Mass Solution"

Analysis of Haramein's 2013 paper "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass"

Analysis of Haramein's 2010 paper "The Schwarzschild Proton"

Notes on Haramein's misleading TEDx talk

Here's what happened when someone set up a Wikipedia page presenting Haramein as a physicist.

Here's 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. And when a copy temporarily appeared on Youtube, here's what the documentary enthusiasts of Reddit made of it.

It's hard to find 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. 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 explaining what is involved.)

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! But alas, there is no conspiracy. And anyone who knows how to google can see how not silenced you are.

No, 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.

36 comments:

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,...in 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

Firstly
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


...OK...

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”:

http://haramein-critics-review.blogspot.is/2017/08/response-to-troll-bobathons-brief.html

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

https://resonance.is/response-to-bobathon/

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...

@bob

""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...

@Bob

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."

BUT

""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.


question:

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

source: http://haramein-critics-review.blogspot.be/p/about-bobathon.html

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

http://haramein-critics-review.blogspot.be/

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...

@Bob

SO

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

http://haramein-critics-review.blogspot.be/

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 ..

but
indeed,

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 ...

BUT

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nassim_Haramein_(3rd_nomination)

(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...

CHEERS

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...

Bob,

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

Anastasio

Bob said...

Thanks Anastasio :)

Post a Comment

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