Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by sandwiches
I watched Nassim's presentation at the Rogue Theater.


Actually it's identified as the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library, which highlights the first post I made in this thread stating that the topic is metaphysics and not physics.

His story is a hoot. Starting with his vision.

The so-called "vision" he describes in that video...is it just a coincidence that I saw the exact same movie that fits the description of his "vision"? It was one of my favorite movies I've ever seen:

videosift.com...

The movie even shows going into a hand at about 6:30, and shows structures inside the hand like what Haramein describes when he goes into his hand at 17:45 in the vision he describes in his video. So maybe he had a vision like he described, or maybe he saw the same movie I did and confabulated the part about it being a vision of his...The similarities are so great I lean toward the latter. The movie could have chosen ANYTHING to show the microscopic structure of, so the selection of the hand is what persuades me about the confabulation.

The original video had some interesting narration but it's been removed from youtube so this version with the sound track replacing the narration is the only one I found. I should have downloaded the narrated version when I had the chance, darnit!

Anyway he tells his mother about his vision and that everything is points with infinite energy. His mother tells him she doesn't feel infinite and he needs to go back to school. Well that was pretty good advice from his mother. So does he go back to school? What he does is replace one version of nonsense that his mother bashed with a modified version of nonsense. But he still throws the word infinitely around at the drop of a hat and even implies you folks are infinitely dense and you're not insulted by that?


If you doubt his credentials just look at his web site. Nassim FTW


I did, those are the credentials that fool some laypeople who don't know any better but are obviously no credentials at all in the scientific community. Furthermore, by his own admission he's weak in math and claiming to understand physics without being good at math is probably one of the most damning credentials he has. (Or should I say lack of credential). He had to bring in Elizabeth A. Rauscher to do the math because it's over his head, so I would suspect he may not even understand the math his own paper since someone else had to do the math or at least help him with it. Haramein and Rauscher are co-authors on most of the papers referenced in his proton paper, fancy that. He cites himself and the person who does his math for him as the references in his paper? No wonder it hasn't passed peer review.

He doesn't understand even the simplest concepts in geometry that most of us had figured out by the 8th grade. Look at 12:15 in his video. After drawing a dot, line, plane, he then says the cube is made out of 6 planes. This shows massive confusion on his part. The cube is drawn by a figure that is represented by 6 planes because this is how we visually represent 3D objects on a flat surface like a drawing board. But the cube is a solid block, NOT 6 planes. I have so say that part of his presentation confusing a 3D cube with 6 planes is something I'd expect from a 2nd grader, not a grown adult. It's just so laughable that he could claim to be a physicist. And then he says his work has been submitted for peer review....if you're holding your breath waiting for any real peers to review and approve his work, you can stop now. You should know the difference between 6 planes and a cube to even pass geometry, let alone physics 101. Yet he claims this is some great ancient unsolved mystery.

And if any of you are confused by this like Haramein is, six two-dimensional planes have never been claimed to be the same thing as one three-dimensional cube. Yet in his mind that is somehow the confused message he got from his teacher. And he said he was afraid to ask the teacher about it because he might get kicked out. Maybe he should have asked and gotten an answer so he wouldn't try to come up with some strange explanations for a non-existent paradox.

So his site is no further help on his nonexistent credentials, but I did learn that this year he's charging $475 to spend the weekend with him instead of $375 like he charged last year.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]




posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Well, it's good to remain skeptical. I haven't been given a reason to doubt his work or papers yet, though.

Perhaps I will do some more investigation based on the scientific challenges you make.

There's another interesting thread over here.

Keep askin' questions



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Stewart Swerdlow comments in his Q&A about Niburu and Neat. . .


In February 2003 Stewart commented that Comet NEAT was probably actually Niburu/Marduk that had been pushed off course. Then in April 2007 he commented that Nibura was destroyed by the Illuminati in April 2003 just after the Iraq invasion.

I did a search on his Q&A to see how it was destroyed. Here is the result:


Niburu
Posted: November, 28, 2008

Dear Stewart and Janet:
I viewed one of your recent lectures on DVD and you stated that Nibiru was destroyed. Can you tell me how it was destroyed, who destroyed it, and why? Does that mean the Annunaki who lived on Nibiru have been destroyed forever? I always thought that the Annunaki on Nibiru were going to return to Earth in 2012.
Thank you.
Beverly

Stewart's Reply: OK-- I have been writing about this for 5 years now. Niburu was destroyed in April 2003, 1 month after the US invaded Iraq to gain control of the stargates under Baghdad.

The Illuminati used particle beam accelerator weapons in pulse form to blow it up as it neared Jupiter.

Pieces of the planet are still flying into the Sun--watch NASA Suncam, and hitting the Earth as meteors.

The whole 2012 scenario is programming. Please read my books.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Searching for physicists' comments about Haramein's work, I came across an article on the bibliotecapleyades.net website dated May 29, 2009 by Michael Salla, Ph.D. entitled "World Renowned Physicist Challenged over Free Energy Machines."

The world renowned physicist is Dr Michio Kaku and the challenger is Dr Robert Koontz.


I did a search for "Dr Robert Koontz on Haramein."

In the search results is this interesting website: Vortex Network News. Scrolling down the page I see that there's a lot of talk about free energy. We know that free energy technology is suppressed. I'm realizing this has a lot to do with the controversy over Haramein.

The reason this website came up is the statement:

What really fascinated Bill was AlienScientist's review of Nassim Haramein's breakthrough paper, "The Schwarzschild Proton."


Here is the description of that interview:

Jan 02, 2010 at 10:00AM

Alien Scientist

Bill's special guest this week is the AlienScientist.

The AlienScientist is a man named Jeremy (approx 30) He prefers to have his last name/identity withheld due to the sensitive nature of his work and how that might affect his career goals as a young aspiring scientist and student of Physics. About 3-4 years ago Jeremy read "Behold a Pale Horse" by William Cooper and became interested in the UFO/Alien phenomenon for scientific purposes. This lead him into researching other conspiracies, such as 9/11. After reviewing much of the available information found online and finding a lack of strong scientific arguments and evidence, he decided to start making and posting his own videos in an attempt to battle the disinformation and counter-intelligence out there using the only proven method for finding the real truth: The Scientific Method. . . .


Here's the description that goes with Jeremy's video about Haramein's paper:

AlienScientist — August 25, 2009 — Special Thanks to Nassim Haramein!

TheResonanceProject.org

A copy of the paper can be found here:
www.theresonanceproject.org...

Theoretical Physicist comes up with a similar conclusion to Haramein's work:
newsinfo.iu.edu...

An explanation of the Vacuum Density and some application such as the Casimir Effect:
www.soulsofdistortion.nl...





posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Theoretical Physicist comes up with a similar conclusion to Haramein's work


Here is a link to the above article, which is on the Indiana University website, dated April 5, 2010, entitled "Our universe at home within a larger universe? So suggests IU theoretical physicist's wormhole research."



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by sandwiches
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Well, it's good to remain skeptical. I haven't been given a reason to doubt his work or papers yet, though.

Perhaps I will do some more investigation based on the scientific challenges you make.

There's another interesting thread over here.

Keep askin' questions


Thanks, and yes it would be wise to investigate. Here's something else you can investigate. Have you seen those giant particle accelerators like at Fermilab and the LHC? They have confirmed that the closer they accelerate a proton to the velocity of the speed of light, the more massive the proton becomes, such that in order for the proton to travel at the speed of light, it would have infinite mass.

lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch...


When protons arrive in the LHC they are traveling at 0.999997828 times the speed of light. Each proton goes around the 27km ring over 11 000 times a second.


The LHC and other particle accelerators constantly confirm the velocity-mass relationship established by Einstein, they can double the energy of the proton, but the speed doesn't double, it only goes a tiny bit faster and most of the extra energy goes into increased mass of the proton. That's why you see 99.9997828% of the speed of light. We can build bigger particle accelerators but all we can do is add more 9s to the 99.999% of the speed of light because it would take infinite energy to give the proton infinite mass. This is not some fantasy scientists dreamed up on a piece of paper, it is factual observations made at the LHC and predecessors which confirm how that a proton traveling at the speed of light will have infinite mass. Yet that's apparently no problem for Haramein, in his paper "The Schwarzchild Proton", he sets the velocity of two protons orbiting each other at the speed of light without batting an eye:



We aren't even sure if the whole universe has infinite mass, but if it does, then one proton traveling at the speed of light would have the mass of the entire universe. But Haramein has two protons traveling around each other at the speed of light each of which would have an infinite mass so together these two protons have at least double the mass of the known universe. How do you reconcile that with the tons of observational data on what happens to the mass of a proton at the LHC when we give it more energy?

That's another question for you to ponder as you investigate the scientific merits of his claims.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Searching for physicists' comments about Haramein's work, I came across an article on the bibliotecapleyades.net website dated May 29, 2009 by Michael Salla, Ph.D. entitled "World Renowned Physicist Challenged over Free Energy Machines."


Is it this Dr.Salla?
en.wikipedia.org...

He has PhD degree in Government from the University of Queensland, and is a big fan of UFOs in his spare time.

I can be a master of Japanese calligraphy, but it hardly gives me ANY qualification to speak on topics in physics.


This creates what is called a “torsion field” where energy is generated from the rotating objects. According to Dr Elizabeth Rauscher and Nassim Haramein from the Resonance Project, torsion fields power all known rotating objects in the universe from suns and galaxies, to atoms.


Atoms do not need to be "powered". Some of them don't even "rotate", whatever the author implied.

A typical set of idiotic gibberish for simpleton's consumption.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by sandwiches
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Well, it's good to remain skeptical. I haven't been given a reason to doubt his work or papers yet, though.


You've read his work on "Schwarzschild Protons", haven't you? In section 2, what is the meaning and value of the "quantum vacuum density"? In equation (2), section two, why is he using the Planck's mass?

Thank you.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Is it this Dr.Salla?
en.wikipedia.org...

He has PhD degree in Government from the University of Queensland, and is a big fan of UFOs in his spare time.

I can be a master of Japanese calligraphy, but it hardly gives me ANY qualification to speak on topics in physics.


The point of the post had nothing to do with Dr. Salla.

The point of the post had to do with:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
The world renowned physicist is Dr Michio Kaku and the challenger is Dr Robert Koontz. The article states:

. . . Dr Robert Koontz, a nuclear physicist who has worked in various government projects and held Top Secret classification, pointed out the fallacies in Dr Kaku’s thinking. Dr Kaku, according to Dr Koontz, needs to reconsider the feasibility of non-conventional energy devices. Otherwise he may suffer the same fate as early scientific critics of the Wright Brothers - critics dismissed the idea of heavier-than-air flying machines as impossible.

Haramein's name comes up in the article here:

. . . Another way for an unconventional or “free energy” device to work is for it to use rotating electromagnetic fields using magnets, plasma, or other electrical conductors.

This creates what is called a “torsion field” where energy is generated from the rotating objects. According to Dr Elizabeth Rauscher and Nassim Haramein from the Resonance Project, torsion fields power all known rotating objects in the universe from suns and galaxies, to atoms.


I'm wondering whether resistance to Haramein's work by mainstream physicists has anything to do with the establishment's resistance to free energy.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


But it does to do with Dr.Salla. A part of the exposition was written by him, apparently. As to the Koontz, I didn't find anything of substance in his allegations.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
As to the Koontz, I didn't find anything of substance in his allegations.


A quote from Dr Koontz in the article:

Dr. Kaku: You appear to believe that the universe has 11 dimensions, many of which are supposed to be hidden. Why would that be true while creation of energy using negative mass electrons or using gauge transformations would be impossible? Could you be wrong, sir? Undoubtedly you think you are not wrong, but could you be wrong, sir?

You might say to me that negative mass electrons have never been seen. But those many dimensions you believe in have never been seen either. And is it not true that we physicists for decades have used negative mass electrons in our theories in order to reach agreement with experiment?



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
As to the Koontz, I didn't find anything of substance in his allegations.


A quote from Dr Koontz in the article:

Dr. Kaku: You appear to believe that the universe has 11 dimensions,


Well in case you got the idea I'm blindly defending everything mainstream physics has to say, I'm not. Like most scientists I'm an independent thinker and I evaluate each claim on its own merits. The 11-dimensional claim is an unproven hypothesis in my view. So there is some validity to asking that question. Where's the proof this 11-dimension theory is true in the real world? So far the only proof I've seen is mathematical. I need to see more than that. I'm pretty skeptical myself but if they can provide real-world proof of 11-dimensions I'll at least look at it. Until then, it's an unproven hypothesis.

However, the rest of that quote is a logical fallacy of an argument. I can't point to someone else's unproven hypothesis as evidence that my unproven hypothesis should be accepted. That sounds like the argument Koontz is making and it's not a valid argument.

Each hypothesis needs to be proven on its own merits.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
However, the rest of that quote is a logical fallacy of an argument. I can't point to someone else's unproven hypothesis as evidence that my unproven hypothesis should be accepted. That sounds like the argument Koontz is making and it's not a valid argument.


Quite! And in more than one place. What's more, Kaku can point to a mathematical apparatus that tries to explain how the alleged, speculative 11 dimensions can explain the Universe the way we know it. With Koontz, it's always hand waving and a sympathetic reference to Wright brothers.

And more on the topic of the OP -- I bothered to glance through the article by Haramein and it's nonsensical.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Let's throw crop circles into the discussion!!

Still looking for more comments from others on Haramein's work, I came across the website Reality Sandwich. I think this comment from a reader is interesting:

Energy flow from unseen dimensions?
Submitted by Red Collie on Tue, 12/02/2008 - 22:50.

Two non-mainstream physicists, Richard Hoagland and Nassim Haramein, have postulated that energy is still flowing into our universe from other dimensions: not just 15 billion years ago and all at once, as for a hypothetical Big Bang, but still ongoing today!

I did not take much notice of their ideas, until distinct symbols from their theories were shown in English crop pictures at Secklendorf, Germany on June 23, 2008, or at Oliver's Castle on August 16, 2008: see www.cropcircleconnector.com/anasazi/time2007s.html

Then on August 17, 2008, about twenty dancing "balls of light" were videotaped by Andy Fowlds over another crop picture at Westwoods: see www.medwaycropcircle.co.uk/westwood2008bols.htm

Mainsteam academic scientists on Earth have not yet taken such well-documented but anomalous data in account, when formulating ever more complex views about dark matter or the non-existence of extra-terrestrials.

Those new experimental data, as well as novel physical theories promoted by Hoagland or Haramein, would seem to indicate that the current consensus view among modern academics might be wrong.

By all means, other people should discuss this important subject further, but not before studying at the two informative links provided above, and evaluating those new concepts with an open mind.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have Nassim's DVD Crossing the Event Horizon: Rise to the Equation and enjoyed it tremendously. I was reading David Icke's new book Human Race Get off Your Knees this morning, and thinking about the spiritual transformation that David talks about in an early chapter of this book, I remembered that Nassim mentions in his talks that someone taught him how to meditate and that he has had experiences with meditation that have influenced his work. That made me go online to see whether he is sharing anything about meditation these days.


I have found a blog article written by a graduate of the Delegate Program. It is on a website called Community Meditation:

Matt Chambers is a meditation instructor and founder of Community Meditation and recently graduated from the Nassim Haramein Delegate Program as a Certified Resonance Project Delegate.


Matt quotes Nassim regarding meditation:

“The way into the vacuum… is to go inwards towards the singularity, to the point of stillness where all spins cancel out… The tendency is to try to focus outside yourself, but really what is necessary is to use techniques of meditation, or contemplation, or so on to actually go inside yourself towards the infinitely small… to actually go towards singularity, towards the infinite potential inside each one of your atoms… to the information network, and direct it in a way that will fulfill [y]our deepest desires [this] becomes very, very powerful. If we take the time every morning to connect with the stillness than at least we know how to get back to it. So if we experience the spin throughout the day we can [recognize when] we are spinning and return to that point of singularity, stillness… If we don’t know where that center is, there is no gauge for us to know how far we are in the spin. To get that clarity, I think that the best tool is to spend a few minutes every day going inwards… deeper and deeper into singularity.”



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I actually thought about asking the mods to move this thread out of the science forum, I was going to propose metaphysics, but I never sent them the request. And somehow it got moved to skunk works even without my request to move it.

After that post bringing crop circle energy and hoagland into it, I would have sent a request to move it if it hadn't already been moved.

But it's a great topic for skunk works, no proof of anything is needed here! So I can claim I sensed 6 trans-dimensional aliens from a parallel universe make the crop circle here and I don't have to prove it. I didn't, really, but any claim I can fabricate is just as valid as any claim Hoagland can fabricate.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I actually thought about asking the mods to move this thread out of the science forum, I was going to propose metaphysics, but I never sent them the request. And somehow it got moved to skunk works even without my request to move it.

After that post bringing crop circle energy and hoagland into it, I would have sent a request to move it if it hadn't already been moved.

But it's a great topic for skunk works, no proof of anything is needed here! So I can claim I sensed 6 trans-dimensional aliens from a parallel universe make the crop circle here and I don't have to prove it. I didn't, really, but any claim I can fabricate is just as valid as any claim Hoagland can fabricate.


This thread was moved a couple of days ago. I got the U2U about it. I was wondering whether you had noticed the change or not.

But let's continue the discussion from all angles. I'm interested in the science and the metaphysics.

One person's fabrication is another person's inspiration.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
But let's continue the discussion from all angles. I'm interested in the science and the metaphysics.


OK well it's hard to find scientists who have bothered to debunk Haramein because they mostly do their debunking of crackpot papers submitted for peer review by not approving the paper for publication. Hoagland is a different story given the audience he's reached on C2C, Phil Plait actually took some time to debunk Hoagland here:

Richard Hoagland's Nonsense


I have considered Hoagland to be a fringe pseudoscientist, not really worth debunking. Sometimes, claims are so silly that they aren't worth bothering. But things have changed recently. Hoagland has been given lots of airtime on the late-night "Coast to Coast AM" radio show, which has millions of listeners.

These claims, like most conspiracy claims, are silly, internally inconsistent, and pretty easy to show wrong. So you might think no one pays any attention to him, right?

If only. He is actually rather notorious in the pseudoscience community.

I've let this fester long enough. This kind of pseudoscience is like a virus. At low levels, it's no big deal, but when it reaches a certain threshold it becomes sickening. I don't think Hoagland has reached the level of, say, the Moon Hoax, but he might someday if ignored. I run a risk here of actually giving him the press he clearly wants so desperately, but it's also a risk to ignore his nonsense, again like the Moon Hoax.

And let me be very clear here: Hoagland's claims are insulting. I really don't like it when the devotion and hard work of scientists is unfairly impugned. These scientists are people who are doing what they do because they love it. I get irritated when the subject I love -- astronomy -- is abused, and Hoagland is indeed treating it in an ugly manner. He has the right to say such things (up until it becomes fraud), but I also have the right, and the necessity, to show where he's wrong.


But Hoagland's not wrong about everything:


Amazingly, to me, he also debunked the Hoax, saying the Apollo landings were real! In fact, his debunking is quite excellent and thorough, and, I'll point out, even corrected a mistake I had on my own Moon Hoax page! Since he appears to hate NASA so much, and has stretched the truth in the past, his debunking was shocking to me.

But then I realized why: he claims that alien bases exist on the Moon, and uses NASA imagery to "prove" it. So he was really stuck: he had to support NASA on his page, because if he said the Moon landings were faked, how would he have those pictures he'd been touting? The irony of that situation is delicious to me. One of NASA's biggest detractors, forced by his own nonsense into supporting them.

So apparently Hoagland wrote a good page debunking the claim that the moon landings were hoaxed. After that, well, you can see detailed debunking of Hoagland's less truthful claims in the links at that link I posted.

And Haramein, like Hoagland, blends in some truth with the fiction every once in a while. But some non-scientist may have a hard time telling where the science ends and the nonsense begins the way he weaves them together.

It's really sad because the universe really is a fascinating place to learn about even if you learn the truth. It doesn't take teaching nonsense like Haramein does to make it fascinating.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It's really sad because the universe really is a fascinating place to learn about even if you learn the truth. It doesn't take teaching nonsense like Haramein does to make it fascinating.


Quite! Even a simple experiment like shining polarized light into a tank of water and adding sugar to it, and observing how the glowing plane of polarization rotates, is awe-inspiring. And I'm not even talking about high-energy physics, which is more fun



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It's really sad because the universe really is a fascinating place to learn about even if you learn the truth. It doesn't take teaching nonsense like Haramein does to make it fascinating.


Quite! Even a simple experiment like shining polarized light into a tank of water and adding sugar to it, and observing how the glowing plane of polarization rotates, is awe-inspiring. And I'm not even talking about high-energy physics, which is more fun


I love simple experiments like that. "Mr Wizard" was a long running show in the 90s and people could learn more about real physics from watching that show for 8 minutes than they could learn from Nassim Haramein in 8 hours. Not only that, what is learned from Haramein is wrong so it has to be unlearned to get to the truth so it's even worse than that.

This guy isn't as famous as Mr. Wizard but he does some fun stuff in his youtube recordings called "Do try this at home":

A real gas:

In that show he creates an invisible gas that you can't see, smell, touch, or taste. In fact you can't even tell it's there until you start running some experiments on it. And he does it all with things you can find around the house that you can try yourself, it's a nice break from all the math and equations that higher science involves anyway. It's nice to bring science home and make it personal. You can debate all day long about who is right, Haramein or some other guy based on a bunch of theories, but when you run experiments and make observations, a real scientific result is repeatable by others no matter who makes the claim, observation, or experiment. Ultimately that's the only way to tell real science from the cheap imitation, pseudoscience.

What got me hooked on understanding nature was seeing some dust particles move inexplicably in a bowl of water when I was in elementary school. What could be simpler than dust in a bowl of water? Yet it wasn't for years that I would learn about Brownian motion, the phenomenon that caused that effect, one that I daresay some less observant people may have never even noticed.





top topics
 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum