Talk:Nassim Haramein

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>


[edit] "Connected Universe" Doco Campaign - Fraud?

Has anyone looked into the "Connected Universe" film/doco that nassim is currently raising funds for?
they have been marketing this for years and there is never a release date mentioned. they just recently (may 2015) extended the release date - claiming to be adding "amazing things" - meanwhile they have raise over 172% of their target amount, the "rewards" for donations have so far been stalled also. but don't worry - you can still donate!
This film marketing would be a great example of a charlatan at work - would be great to have a section about it on this page. maybe it would cause him to lose many fans when they realize they are paying (up to $10,000) for a doco that will definitely be misleading and possibly never released :) — Unsigned, by: / talk 07:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Polish up

This could do with understatement and a robust BLPising. If a drive-by IP removes stuff, examine it before blindly reverting - David Gerard (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What the article is missing is describing properly his popularity with the New Age crowd. His work is reminiscent of What the Bleep Do We Know?. --ZooGuard (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I was just thinking that - the first several pages of Google hits on him are New Age physics woo (a more generalised version of quantum woo) - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] The blogs that debunked this guy

1. Whoever wrote this called them "equally reputable" -- is that what they meant to say? 2. How about some links to those blogs? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that some links got lost during all the revisions. Sample:
And half of the external links are badly formed.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be nice if there existed papers that did a good job of addressing some of Haramein's claims, but blogs seem to be the best we have. I'll pop on to my university's database to make sure I can't find anything, but it seems unlikely, seeing as Haramein hasn't had his work published in any mainstream peer-reviewed journals. - Grant (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] A new "documentary"

Crowd-funded, of course: --ZooGuard (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Serious Science

Nassim Haramein's solution to the proton radius puzzle and the derivation of the equation:

Indented line

MpRp=4LM (Algebraic Form)

is a major contribution to science. His theory is being taken seriously by many scientists and engineers.

I am an electrical engineer that designs in integrated circuits processes. I not only do the design (analog), I have also created the process recipes and design rules that designers use to create the circuits that power the information age.

I have to know quantum mechanics, at a minimum, solid state electronics. I have studied Richard Feynman's work for decades and have taken Richard's advice on how to keep up with physics - by looking and listening for ANY information on the unsolved physics problems.

So, I am ONE among many who regard Nassim Haramein's work as being a valuable addition to the work of Einstein and Planck.

Here is a simple near proof, all one has to do is follow the derivation behind the equation:

Why does this simple equation work for the solution to the proton radius puzzle:

MpRp=4LM ???

Mp=Mass of proton Rp=Radius of proton L=Planck Length M=Planck Mass

Mp=1.67262177774e-27 kg L=1.61619926e-33 cm M=2.1765113e-8 kg

Calculated Rp=*(1.61619926e-33)*(2.1765113e-8)%2F(1.67262177774e-27)%3D

Calculated Rp=0.84123643e-13 cm

The muonic hydrogen proton charge radius measurements of 2010 and 2013 approach this simply calculated value.

This is what Richard Feynman was looking for - a source of the mass of matter and it should be in fundamental units, Planck units, and that is what MpRp=4LM is.


(Nassim has solved this problem and resolved many of the unknown physics problems. See

  1. science #physics #feynman #nassimharamein #bozon

PhxMarker (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] /r/holofractals is mad

They also question whether science requires things like "equations", and presumably hypothesis testing as well. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 18:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps stop reading reddit? Hipocrite (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
+1 - David Gerard (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Personal tools