Meditation techniques based on this knowledge will also be offered as an invaluable tool to aid in further integration, as you learn how to more effectively tap into the vacuum energy and the curvature of space and time and connect to your own personal singularity.

The reason I want to 'debunk' him is because he's wrong. I teach physics and maths to students, and I think it's important to let them know when something is wrong. It's important to be able to tell truth from falsehood - if we don't, then we lose sight of truth altogether. I don't like it when someone pretends to have insights into the laws of physics that all the scientists of the world are supposedly too dumb to have realised, but in fact has nothing but charisma and a silvery tongue.

Now if you just want to listen to him because he can tell an entertaining, inspiring, but rather silly story, full of stuff he's made up, then I wouldn't argue with you for doing that at all.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Nassim's work has recently been recognized by his peers:

After some 20 years of tireless dedication to his in depth research on unification, Nassim Haramein’s most recent scientific paper, “The Schwarzschild Proton,” received an award at the University of Liège, Belgium during the 9th International Conference CASYS'09 (Computing Anticipatory Systems).

Chosen by a panel of 11 peer reviewers, Haramein's paper won the prestigious "Best Paper Award" in the field of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation.” This significant paper marks a new paradigm in the world of quantum theory, as it describes the nuclei of an atom 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 atoms.

Here's the link: www.theresonanceproject.org...

SYMPOSIUM 1: ANTICIPATION, INCURSION, HYPERINCURSION, SYNCHRONIZATION, ADVANCED-DELAYED AND PREDICTIVE MODELS

- STRONG and WEAK anticipation, Incursive and Hyperincursive Systems, Systems with retardation and anticipation, Differential difference equation systems, Anticipatory synchronization, Self-referential Systems, Cybernetics, feedback, feedforward, General systems, Predicting and Forecasting systems, Holistic Systems and Reductionism, Epistemology, Philosophy of Science, …

Special Session on Anticipation from a Transcendental Perspective, Organised by Gertrudis Van de Vijver (Belgium)



SYMPOSIUM 2: MATHEMATICAL MODELLING, CHAOS THEORY, DYNAMIC, LOGIC, STOCHASTIC AND STATISTIC SYSTEMS

- Modelling, Simulation, Control and Optimisation of systems, Differential equation systems, Discrete equation systems, Functional Differential equations, Delayed, Advanced, Neutral, and Mixed equations, Dynamical systems, Chaos Theory, Fractal maps, Category Theory, Catastrophe Theory, …

SYMPOSIUM 3: PHYSICAL SYSTEMS, CLASSICAL PHYSICS, QUANTUM MECHANICS, RELATIVITY, FIELD THEORY, GRAVITATION

- New trends in theoretical physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity and Gravitation, Optics, Electromagnetism, Quantum Field Theory, Lienard-Wiechert potentials, Advanced-retarded waves, E.P.R. Non-locality, Aharanov-Bohm potential, Berry's phase, Faster than light, Tachyons, Black hole, Big-Bang, Soliton, Instanton, Dilaton, Euclidean and Lorentzian metrics, …

SYMPOSIUM 4: COMPUTING SYSTEMS, DISCRETE MODELS, ALGORITHM, SIMULATION, INFORMATION SYSTEMS, NETWORKS

- Automata, Networks (web), Recursive Systems, Software and Hardware, Anticipatory Data Staging, User modeling, agent-based systems, multi-agent systems, evolutionary and adaptive computation, Algorithms for simulation, implicit algorithms, predictor-corrector algorithms, Crisp Computing, Logical systems, Quantum computing, Turing Machine, Formal Language, Music, Image …

SYMPOSIUM 5: SOFT COMPUTING, COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, FUZZY SYSTEMS, NEURAL NETWORKS, LEARNING

- STRONG and WEAK Computing Anticipatory System, Fuzzy logic, Genetic Algorithms, Neural Networks, Computational intelligence, STRONG and WEAK Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Emotions, Natural Language versus Formal Language, Brain versus Turing Machine, Zombies, STRONG and WEAK Consciousness, STRONG and WEAK Artificial Life, Intelligent Agents and Multi-agent, Intelligent conscious robots, …

Focus Session on Artificial Formal Language and Natural Language, Organised by Daniel M. Dubois (Belgium) and Pere Julià (Spain)


SYMPOSIUM 6: COGNITIVE SYSTEMS, MIND, PSYCHOLOGY, INTENTION, CONSCIOUSNESS

- Model of anticipatory and predictive capabilities, Internal models for predictive control, Neuronal brain, Neuro-psychoanalysis, Psychology, Intention, Free will, Mind and Consciousness, Conscience, Unconscious, Awareness, Unconscious anticipation, Intuitive conscious anticipation, Emotional anticipation, …

Special Session on Science of Consciousness, Organised by Gilles Nibart (France) and Jerry Chandler (USA)

SYMPOSIUM 7: BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS, GENETICS, EVOLUTION, ECOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL MODELS

- What is life, model of development, DNA, theories of evolution, Darwinism, adaptation, anticipatory behaviour, emergence, ecological systems, biological control, environmental transformations, …

FOCUS TOPICS ON DARWIN 2009

SYMPOSIUM 8: MANAGEMENT, ECONOMICAL SYSTEMS, SOCIAL MODELS, MULTI-AGENTS, DECISION SUPPORT, RISK MANAGEMENT

- Social systems, Risk management, Decision-making, Anticipatory Planning and Scheduling, Discrete event dynamic systems, Information Systems, Operation research, Statistics, Probability theory, Multi-criteria analysis, Adaptive and Rational Expectations, Rational Anticipation, Econophysics, Intuitive Decision Making, …

SYMPOSIUM 9: ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS, MODELLING, OPTIMIZATION, SIMULATION, CONTROL

- Model-based Predictive Control, Generalized Predictive Control, Model Predictive Heuristic Control, Dynamic Matrix Control, Internal Model Control, Fuzzy Model Predictive Control, Learning Model Predictive Control, Adaptive Model Predictive Control, Smith's Predictor Control, Robotics, Multi-agents, manufacturing systems, Aesthetics and Architecture, …

SYMPOSIUM 10: 7th BCSCMsG International Symposium on Grammatical Cosmos II, dedicated to the Quantum Hologram - Focus Session - Intelligence, Consciousness & How The Laws of Physics Become the Laws of Life

Nassim (and indeed the other participants in the video) is someone who is way too ready and willing to make outrageous claims, and to jump on anything that looks kind-of right without stopping to question it. He drags into his explanations as many established scientific concepts as possible to make what he says sound convincing, however irrelevant they may be, and throws in some seriously wacky ones for good measure.

I think this example goes some way to explain why so many people love the 'intuitively right' feel of Nassim's ideas. It feels intuitively right to some people because his approach is simply to spot what seems to be a connection or a pattern, and link it up to the first thing that it reminds him of. He's also a master story-teller. Physics could really do with more people who can communicate like him (but who understand what they're talking about, are a bit less self-obsessed and self-promoting, and will tell the truth). Nassim Haramein is not an investigator, rigorously testing his ideas on the touchstone of reality. He is not – as he claims – a physicist. He's a fraud.

The appeal of his ideas – making the complexities of the universe graspable and simple to understand – is a false appeal. The Universe far more beautiful and complex than this, and far more of a slippery customer. Getting even a glimpse of how it works has taken the collaborative effort of massive numbers of rigorous, dedicated researchers over the ages. It's an affront to Nature to claim that it can be grasped by whatever models and connections happen to come into one guy's head, untested and unquestioned, however intuitive and exciting and real it may all have seemed to him at the time.

It's a attractive idea. Who wants 'the scientists' to have all the answers? The idea that this one guy-next-door character might have these lovely little insights into physics that have all escaped the entire scientific community, that would be one in the eye for the institutions, wouldn't it. You can see the appeal. It'd be a great thing to be a part of. If he wasn't simply making it all up.

he is not trained in the scientific method, or in mathematics, and openly admits both these facts. he actually asked me for help with mathematics as its not his strong point.

How is it that there is absolutely no support from any part of the scientific community for any of Nassim's ideas, talks, or research? None of his papers have been published in any scientific journal – certainly not one subject to proper peer review. Scientists seem to either treat him as a crank or dismiss him altogether.

There are hundreds of thousands of scientists in the universities of the world, and their ways of thinking are as various as any other group of hundreds of thousands of human beings - if not more so. There'll always be plenty of scientists hungry for any radical idea, especially in topics as hot as grand unified theories, provided it's got some substance.

There may well be unanimous skepticism about things which have utterly no scientific basis, such as someone claiming to have a theory that the moon is made of green cheese. But this is not because of any inability to think outside of the box.

Mr. Haramein has been giving lectures and seminars on his unification theory for over 10 years. His lectures are multimedia presentations that lead his audiences through the validity of his theories with observational and theoretical data. He has presented at such institutions as the Department of Physics at Georgia Tech, the Department of Physics at University of Nebraska at Omaha . . . and his unification model has now been delivered to the American Physical Society.

Anybody can rent a hall on most college campuses and sell tickets to the general public. Giving a lecture at a University means nothing.

I once worked very closely with someone who turned out to be a complete crackpot and I witnessed from the inside how they can make everything they do look legitimate to the untrained outsider. It's all smoke and mirrors for the sole purpose of making money.

But what the heck. Who cares if something is true or not, just as long as it's fun to believe it.

Yeah, that's it. Lets' just make our standard of acceptability be this: "Is it fun to believe this thing?" If the answer is "yes", then we'll believe it, whether it's really true or not. Especially if the imaginary thing we want to believe in is so much more simplistic than real science. After all, we don't have the education to understand real science, and that also makes fake science much more appealing to believe in.

One additional note. I did watch the video. A lot of the things he says are TRUE. But they are also known to and accepted by mainstream science. So to find one or two or seven dozen things he says that are true doesn't make any of his other nonsense true as well. That's like me saying: "My theory predicts that rain is wet and that Martians are about to invade Earth." Since rain is, indeed, wet, does that prove that Martians are about to invade Earth? Do you see the fault in that line of reasoning?

So if you are going to pick and choose which crackpots to believe, you MUST have some criteria with which to judge one crackpot vs another crackpot.

What is your criteria?

I suggest that your criteria might well be what I have mentioned before:

1. Is this crackpot fun to believe?
2. Is this crackpot's explanation easier to understand than real science?
3. Do I need any real education to understand what this crackpot says, or is it something any moron can grasp?

So what you are suggesting is that if you ever need delicate brain surgery you would sooner trust a neurosurgeon who's understanding of the brain is more fun than real, more simplistic than accurate, and basic enough that anyone off the street could grasp it.

Does that really sound like a good set of standards for truth?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?

The anti-relativity movement got underway as soon as Einstein's first paper on special relativity was published, in 1905. Some scientists disputed its assertion that the old Newtonian concepts of absolute space and time — which had never been scientifically established — were superfluous.