Posted by ShaneG on Nov 13, 2013 in Science | 13 comments
I find Haramein fascinating and engaging but mainstream treats him like a quack. Which is it then?
Views so far:
If you ARE a physicist – you’ll fall into one of two categories: (1) you’ll laugh him off as a fraud and a quack, you’ll remind everyone that he’s SELF-TAUGHT and therefore non-credible, you’ll point out the one or two things he said that are provably inaccurate, and you’ll recommend to everyone that they never ever listen to all that nonsense – ever – again. Or (2) you will be stunned by how profound his insights are and you’ll support him! (You might lose your job at your university, but you’ll take the chance).
Currently, the majority of physicists are in the first category, as far as “the Nassim Haramein problem” is concerned. But… there’s a slowly growing contingent of respected scientists who don’t merely support his views, his equations and his revolutionary theories – they also think he’s Nobel-prize material! (At this point in your reading, if you’re a physicist of the first category, you may be excused to go throw up somewhere!)
It’s amazing to me just how polarizing Nassim has been. He is clearly a genius. Even those who despise him rarely deny that. But… he’s self-taught. And he’s said some things which are wrong. He’s got no formal scientific credentials. And on top of that he’s an iconoclast and he believes in all those crazy alternative archeological theories! That alone must mean he’s a quack. And – the worst of all – he TALKS using colloquialisms and plain-speak. That’s it. He’s OUT!
Nassim Haramein lecture at The Rogue Valley Conference
Was this answer helpful?
He is a great showman and for a selftaught physicist he is amazing. But he made errors which cost him credibility. I tbink hes great but he will always struggle against conventional academics.
Struggling is good . . . that’s how we grow and evolve 🙂
Well written and Noteworthy.
I don’t know the first thing about anything, I approach the universe from a self-observation point of view.
What I understand is that weather you like it or not, everything is connected.
Macrocosmos and microcosmos are one and the same.
Listening to Nassim it resonates with me, he speaks from the heart.
And thats more than can be said about most people in the scientific community. Including teachers in school that kill there own subjects course they don’t have any passion for life.
To be honest I don’t even care if hes “right”. He is doing the right Thing. That is following his heart, speaking with it and tearing down the solid walls of “established elitist science”, something that is pretty dead from my point of view.
My gut tells me this guy will be praised in the future…
Well you’ve certainly fallen for the hype!
He’s not tearing down any walls.
That’s like claiming I’m tearing down the walls of established biology by claiming that tigers are a hundred feet tall and mice run complicated underground nuclear facilities!
Just because he’s making absurd claim7 doesn’t mean he’s tearing down the establishment! All it means is he’s making absurd claims.
New and progressive insight is often rejected by those who are frustrated because of the inability to understand fully. We’ll just have to wait and see . . . hopefully in our lifetimes, whether Haramein’s hypothesis is valid. His theories are gaining respect from many in the scientific arena . . . and also from those who just understand, on a spiritual level of wisdom, that a lot of what he is saying makes sense.
I enjoy many different viewpoints, even those I don’t agree with. Haramein’s happens to be one that is “up my ally” so to speak, so I enjoy his views in particular.
Remember when . . . people thought the world was flat . . .
The evolution of consciousness and understanding our place in this vast universe will continue, I believe, indefinitely. Gotta be open to new thought and understanding in order to evolve!
Nope. No scientist thought the earth was flat. We had measured it to within meters over 1000 years before the scientific method had ever been formalised!
Look, it’s not a matter of whether or not people understand Haramein, it’s quite the opposite. Those who don’t understand physics believe him, those that DO understand what he’s saying find it hilarious nonsense.
He’s wrong. I can easily prove him wrong, as can any school kid learning GCSE physics.
It’s that simple.
He’s demonstrably wrong.
If he was right, nuclear reactors wouldn’t work, stars wouldn’t shine.
Hydrogen atoms don’t weigh hundreds of millions of tonnes.
Obviously. And yet that’s his entire theory.
If you’ll believe that, against the evidence, then you’ll believe anything.
Some of the comments above are hilarious.
I mean, pretending that he’s making physics accessible to laymen? Nonsense, if laymen listen to him they are learning pseudoscience.
As for the “few errors he’s made”, I think you’ll find that literally everything he says that’s unique to himself is wrong. Literally.
The claims he makes are demonstrably false and, quite obviously, absurd.
He’s a definite fraud. There’s no doubt about it.
As for “physicists who do support him”, well… find me one! The only one g can think of is Elizabeth Raucher, who’s 1. A known crank and 2. Done absolutely nothing noteworthy in physics since about 1980!
Not only that, but again, the things he says and the claims he makes are all that count!
And those things are laughable and demonstrably false.
Not only that, but some of them are open lies, such as the claim to have predicted supermassive black holes at the centre of galaxies (he didn’t, he simply repeated it… Like me predicting that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate wouldn’t be a prediction of any kind) and the latest measurement of the charge radius of a proton (in a paper published AFTER the latest measurement was made, and using an “orbital period” picked to give the answer needed) especially hilarious when you take into account the fact that in his previous paper, if used the radius of 1.32fm… which is twice the actual radius!!
It’s just openly fraudulent.
#Sean – You’re obviously in the first category I mentioned. When “debunking” anything, however, it helps to use concrete examples. When you do, you can say “here’s one thing that’s wrong”. After demonstrating one or two more, you can say “and many more.” But do not say “all” or “everything” is wrong. Not just about Nassim. About ANYTHING you care to debunk. It’s all about balance.
Have a look here, a very good – critical (and also complementary) – look at Nassim:
@In-house Opinion (Paul):
Simple. Hydrogen atoms don’t weigh hundreds of millions of tonnes and don’t share a single defining characteristic of black holes.
I mean, it’s not an exaggeration to say that everything he says unique to himself is utter nonsense.
I went into a lot of detail… the comments didn’t post. Who cares? Protons reflect light. They aren’t black holes.
There’s so much evidence against the claim that they are that it’s quite absurd you would want more of this evidence!
Protons don’t share a single defining characteristic of black holes.
That should be enough to show you they aren’t black holes.
It’s literally more absurd than claiming that football’s are black holes.
@Sean: I’ve not looked at Nassim’s material for a while, but I had a quick refresher scan through just now. It doesn’t seem to me that he says that an atom “weighs” as much as a black hole! Rather, he’s making a connection between them. Much along the same INCREDIBLE lines as this interesting video from Numberphile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=TLzZzEVSAQ5vY&feature=player_detailpage&v=w-I6XTVZXww. The conclusion, while at first glance ridiculous – appears to hold water – even as you scratch your head and KNOW it must be wrong. But is it?
Paul seems to offer many conclusions but no supporting evidence. Sorry, that’s not enough. A mid-1800’s master carriage maker, armed with all the knowledge, skills, and wiles that his craft has to offer, may well think it absurd that the day will come when his carriage will be propelled without a horse. It’s just not part of his paradigm. The same can be said of everyone, including today’s best physicists. Am I saying that N.S. is correct? No. What I’m saying is that it is rather embarrassing to see how smug and closed minded people can be. When I learned science and engineering (MSME/RPI) I was taught to think like a child; i.e., to live in fascination of all creation and retain an open-mindedness and eagerness to learn that is found in children. My first thought, when NH suggested that every proton contains the weight of the universe, is that it could be possible if one could draw and prove an analog of gauge pressure versus absolute pressure. Gauge pressure is a measurement of absolute pressure minus atmospheric pressure. Today’s “weight of a proton” may similarly be a measurement of absolute weight (i.e., the weight of the universe) minus the weight of the background. A loose and unrehearsed analogy, to be sure, but I think the smug and closed-minded will understand my point.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Absolutely NO spam!
Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by WordPress