Talk:Nassim Haramein/Archive1

Nassim augmented Einsteins Field equations adding "tork" or spin to the fabric of space to create a unification theory, The Holofractographic universe theory. His paper "The Schwartzchild Proton" discusses the mathematics of singularity existing in every proton.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 66.62.117.223 / talk / contribs
 * So? And I think the word you need is probably "torque".--ZooGuard (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

TALK: Nassim Haramein - More evidence
Hi

I would like to propose that we revise this article. I would like to research and get more proof that Nassim Haramein is a "crank". I do not believe that we want to be slanderous about people and should provide the "Rational" way so everyone can understand why. How can we get this article put in draft for a couple of weeks?
 * Put any specific changes here, and people will chime in. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 12:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

He is a crank through and through. He knows nothing about physics and struggles with basic mathematics. He has NEVER been cited as relevant by anyone CREDIBLE. Smitherswiki (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have to beg to differ here. He works closely with Elizabeth Rauscher PhD who is a very credible physicist and has been published many times. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 70.64.94.243 / talk / contribs
 * Did he work with her prior to 1980? That's about the last time she did anything that was published in a major journal, and the last time she did any actual physics. - Grant (Talk) 14:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you guys hate this man so much? Has he hurt or killed anyone you know? So what if he is a crank? I think that he might be what he is, however I cant see why this article is so vicious. I suppose he has a family and people who come to his courses and obviously find something in what he says interesting. I don't believe anyone in this world has ever seen God, however so many millions of people believe [in] him through a book that one could mention as being hearsay. However he was crucified before people believed. Maybe someone should have the guts to buy a plane ticket, go to Nassim Haramein and have a face-off and not hide away in cyberspace. 23:53, 15 July 2013‎ (UTC)
 * "We" don't hate him. "We" just think he's a crank.
 * Also, please see argumentum ad populum. The fact that many people "find something interesting" has no relevance to its scientific validity.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand that people say he is a crank, however Einstein was siad to be that too. Do we not have to, at some stage, provide some sort of comparative analysis of his work with works that are also published? I think to just call someone a name like his a "crank" is bit slanderous and assuming that he might be a good man with good intentions, can we perhaps look deeper into either what he has published, as well as his motives for doing so. Now if found that this is of monetary greed, then we can say that he published rubbish for many, however is there any evidence that indicate that he writes these papers for the Dark Side, or something like that. There are so many things that could draw more attention then Nassim's papers, like the genocide in Syria. At this moment I cannot see why we have to write negative article about this man without distinctive proof that his intent is malice. I think someone got pissed of and had the skills of writing blogs and attacked him. Please reconsider. I am not a fan and friend or anything related to this man, however the tone of this entry just sounds like hate speech and without human intelligence verified facts. I just look at the logic of why this article is here. Thanks for listening. --Lcfoundation (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Crank" says nothing about his moral character or motivations. "Crank" is not mutually exclusive with "a good man with good intentions". "Crank" is about the validity of one's claims, not about their moral character. See RationalWiki's article on crank, the Wikipedia article wp:crank or look up the word in a dictionary.
 * Please notice the fact that the article has been changed after your previous post.
 * Also, please don't use "we" - it's clear that you are not a part of the user community and that your interest in the wiki is limited to this article.
 * As for why this article exists: this is RationalWiki. One of its purposes is to catalog cranks and crackpots. Haramein is a crank. I think that the conclusion is obvious.
 * And, no, the fact that "there are bigger problems" does not mean that that nobody should write about Haramein. You can use the same "logic" to argue that this whole wiki should not exist at all. Or that Haramein should shut up about the Schwarzschild Proton because people are dying in Syria.
 * In conclusion: If you have constructive, specific issues with the article (factual inaccuracy, etc.), please state them here. If you want to turn it into another promotional piece for Haramein, go away to whine elsewhere.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Einstein was considered a crank by some, but he had experimental evidence to back him up and in physics that's what matters. Haramein has none of that; in fact his "theories" completely IGNORE observed experimental facts. He is a complete imbecile. If you know anything about physics, you KNOW without a doubt this guy has absolutely NO IDEA what he is talking about. He takes BASIC equations (using them in situations where they don't even apply), plays around with them, finds a few numbers that look similar (though in reality are not related), and then assumes he has found something profound. If you listen to him talk he goes on and on in circles saying nothing yet claiming to have proven his ridiculous delusions. Only the physics/logic illiterate believe a word he says. And to not expose his utter bullshit and allow him to continue exploiting people for money is just wrong. Smitherswiki (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop throwing around words like "imbecile" so casually.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not throwing it around casually. I suppose to be more precise I could say: when it comes to physics, he is an imbecile. There are two ways to look at it: either he is knowingly misleading people or he has deluded himself so much that he actually believes the words that come out of his mouth. Either way, he does not understand physics but pretends to be some hidden genius. He relies on the ignorance and blind acceptance of others. Smitherswiki (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Guys, I am neither a scientist, know about physics or a promoter of Nassim Haramein. My question is more that there might be some merit in his work with the fact that Dr Elizabeth Raucher, a respected and well published scientist, co-published his paper. I would one day really like to ask Nassim up front what he is actually doing. The things is what caught me onto this wiki, is that I search the internet and found this to be the first link I found. I read it and it sounded so negatie, that I had to read more. I did find many articles saying that he does not know what he is talking about, etc, yet there is not one person who actually says: " I am Dr / Prof / Mr something with X-qualification which makes an authority on the weird and strange things of Nassim Haramein" Like me, I registered under my real name and my foundation and if asked will state my identity and what my profession is (is this case, I am a neuroscientist). Smitherswiki says he (Nassim) is an "imbecile" however on what grounds does he say this? I work daily presenting logical arguments and sometimes one needs some answer as to why people say the things they do. What I am trying to determine is 1) Is Nassim's work really that odd and 2) Is there really no application for what he has done. Now that said, if his work is judged, is their anyone by way of equation and some other formula corect one and send it to Nassim's website and tell the man why he is wrong and show him why. Maybe, he'd wakeup and pay that person some consulting and publish something that is not "Cranky". Please note that I at any time DO NOT represent and defend nor work or has anything to do with Nassim Haramein. I am just interested in some of his concepts, and if someone can correct his wrong, I'd be happy. After so long, no-one seems to have been giving the man the right guidance in how to write formulae or show him what real scientist do. So what bugs me most, from research i've done is that he works with well published scientists and they dont seems to think his wrong. Is that perhaps and angle... I'd like more positive facts however more information about the man himself to be added to this article and I hope to get reasearch done on this and present it here. Thanks for Listening --Lcfoundation (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There have been blogs (you can find them in the sources/further reading) which have shown some of the problems with his theories. Nassim has actually responded to these blogs but has never addressed the fundamental issues. And he has now removed all evidence of these debates from his website (still exists on the wayback machine if you look at the blogs). http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/nassims-response-to-bobathon.html Oh and Dr. Rauscher's approval of Haramein hardly means anything. She spends her time on "psychic healing and faith healing", ideas which I'd hardly call respected by the scientific community. I think that alone shows that Rauscher's belief in Haramein means nothing when it comes to his credibility, unless of course you also think there is credibility to psychic healing because she believes in it. Remember, the paper between Rauscher/Haramein has not been published in any reputable journal (it was only posted to his website - and I don't think it is publicly available anymore, probably only to those who have paid Nassim). Smitherswiki (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"Slight corrections"?
Kahron's edit looks like whitewash to me.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The edits are complete nonsense (except for updating the website url). It is most likely Haramein himself doing the edits. Smitherswiki (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

By icbytes: Though his pattern mathchings about 64-tetraedeon are damn matching all over the world, in his "touching the event horizon" and though his papers, filled with formulas (very less fakers can do this ), though telling about the atom being alomost empty......his entire course aims to get Your interest at the beginning with "some physical stuff", so that You later do not get, when he is going to get "off the road". Then the corn cycles come, then the thora comes, then hidden organizatoins comes..... all of them could be... but i think, it should not fit in physicist's argumentations. If his presentations was ever aimed to be such a thing. Switzerland had "von Daniken". I just hope, that Nassim was not a scholar of Daniken. (By the way : I never can believe, that he, who havs a nice life in Hawaii, could ever IMAGINE putting tetraeders together in his brain and telling us, he did that without a computer and got THOSE results, which he is telling us he got. He MUST have been a real genius to do that. And because of his "not scientific" mixture of the so called "evidences" during his prenetnation there are only 2 options: 1) a real genius 2) a typical switzerland moneymaker, and believe me, in Switzerland are many of those, good earning money. Lets see, what the future brings. I appreciate someone new with new theories, which can be proofed. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 178.83.34.220 / talk / contribs

A crank?
Before treating him a crank, you should read many ancient texts in their original language. These textes speak of sacred / divine geometry and consciousness.

It would be a big mistake to discard as 'pseudo-science' something YOU don't understand. History has shown that some crazy theories have been proved true sometimes long after the discovered died (or was burnt).

I find your article unnecessarily critical.

To come with such a theory, you must be knowledgeable in many fields, encompassing TRUE ancient history, math, physics, ability to model 3D in your mind, and... a very good amount of COMMON SENSE.

Thanks, Alain Minnoy.
 * Thanks Alain. --DamoHi 19:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I always love people who talk about "reading texts in their original language", as if any of them HAD the skills, much less teh desire to really read something in it's original languages. Virtually no one can read ancient texts in their original language, much less know what it means in context, cause they are thousands of years old.  Hell, most of us, raised on english, can't read shakespere, much less something like Beowulf... and yet we should all go out and "read ancient texts in original languages". rolls eyes.[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot  The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability  21:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Nassim Haramein's page is going to need a respectful rewrite
http://resonance.is/news/study-of-graphene-reveals-structure-of-space-time-2/

It looks like he may have been right all along.
 * Okay. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 22:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the mission?
This article seems more concerned with character assassination and insulting the subject than the scientific method (as outlined in the site's mission statement). My first visit to rationalwiki.org. Very disappointing. Rather than beat up on the subject and people like me (interested in things that mainstream science often prejudges as silly), why not do us all a favor and open your minds. Then, and only then, might you have an article of value. Maybe it's good enough to have a place where you can get your religious beliefs validated? Good luck with that. I'm looking for something different.
 * The thing is that there's the scientific method (test a theory to se if it works and abandon it if it doesn't) and the Haramein method (if you theory is disproven, publish it anyway on a pay-to-view website). Do you see the difference? Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 21:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I just downloaded his paper (http://resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1367405491-Haramein342013PRRI3363.pdf) at no cost, so I don't know where you're getting this "pay-to-view" nonsense. I agree with others here, it is not rational to dismiss and attack people just because they challenge your dogma. If you're going to debunk a theory do it with math and reason, source your facts you rely on in your arguments, and stop with the juvenile name calling.
 * So rewrite that bit. Nobody's stopping you. Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 21:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. What is everyone so afraid of? A guy submits that things might not be as they seem and we (as a society) take aim and unload our insecurities and self-doubt onto him. This was also my first visit to "rationalwiki.org" (<--lol) and it will certainly be my last if this is ANY indication of the general attitude of it's contributors (and moderators WOW! how sad!). I'll click the next google result and find some real information. You guys keep up the good work here, lol. Just wow. ---Another example of polarization...we don't all have intelligent insight or the courage to open our eyes, most of us can't in fact, but it's okay because universal truths don't require individual understanding. Much in the same way you don't have to understand how an iPhone works (you can assume the demon inside the phone is hard at work drawing images on the screen for you) you don't have to understand how the universe works...but some of us care and would like to be more efficient if able. Lol...sorry just went back and read some of the comments in this page again, ignorance must honestly be bliss for most people. Ignorant masses scare me ...not the ramblings of a "crank".

Truth
I find the description of Haramein quite amusing. The name calling and transparent attempt to discredit him because he does not subscribe the accepted arguments proposed by mainstream physics is quite lame and arrogant. This article is obviously written by an author ignorant of both Nassim and his current works. As a physicist at a prominent university, I can assure you that you are way off base and I would hope that you would do your homework BEFORE you attempt to profile anyone else.

-

All right. First of all, Nassim Haramein claims, among other things, that God (aka the Tetragrammaton) was actually a technological power source, given to humanity by an alien civilization who "seeded" the planet earth by interbreeding with the dominant species at the time some 25,000 years ago or more. It isn't hard to see why people might disagree with him or even seek to discredit him. That said, he also makes a prediction of the charge radius of the proton that is not only within the accepted standard deviation but also significantly more accurate than that of the standard model, as verified by several recent experiments published in the scientific journal Nature (http://resonance.is/news/question-everything-how-did-haramein-predict-the-charge-radius-of-the-proton/). Maybe the rational thing would be to focus on these things separately, rather than drawing inferences from one to debunk the other, so to speak. I realise that a lot of what he says is not shared by the scientific community at large, and that there is a limited amount of evidence for many of his arguments, but at the very least he does seem to be contributing something, so, you know, credit where credit is due and all that. - Dean 12/01/14&mdash; Unsigned, by: 124.170.64.251 / talk / contribs
 * I'll just leave this here. Constructing a model that happens to correlate with a single observable is neither impressive, nor interesting. There are plenty of reasons why his Schwarzchild proton hypothesis is pretty bad, and that blog lists a few good ones. Really, academia is pretty liberal with the ideas it accepts and acknowledges, and the peer review process is not discriminatory as some cranks are wont to claim. However, if an idea is published and doesn't make it into the scientific consensus, there are typically very good reasons for that. Ideas that are ground-breaking and revolutionary are seized on immediately, not discarded due to wishes to maintain the status quo. - GrantC (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Grant. First, I have read that blog in its entirety and have come here with the best understanding of both the arguments for and against said discussion that I am capable of as of right now. It is my understanding that his model does in fact correlate with not just quantum mechanics but also relativity theory, making it the first model to do such, and therefore surely worth of at least some further analysis, rather than instant dismissal. I realise there have been claims that his work has been debunked, but can you prove that it indeed has? So far I have found no such thing, and I don't believe an anonymous blog to be an authority on the subject (maybe the physicist of a prominent university above us can shed some light on the subject?). Second, it takes a long time for contentious theories to become scientific consensus - see flat world, earth at the centre of the galaxy, etc. Ideas that are ground-breaking and revolutionary are certainly not always seized on immediately. If anything, history teaches us that they are very often ignored completely for as long as possible. Third, with both of those things said, the edits I made were, in my opinion, (a) incredibly humble and cautious, with my wording reflecting that there is still very little consensus on the subject, and (b) having very little to do with either of those points to begin with. I fail to see how your disagreement with the opinions that I have expressed justifies the reversal of my removing the word "nonsense" from the description of his theory, let alone the removal of the allegation that his website is created with the direct intention to mislead, for example. What evidence have we for such a claim? Finally, even if you still feel that such descriptions of his work are necessary, I would humbly urge you to reconsider at least those points that are clearly provable fact, such as the fact that you can download his papers for free rather than having to pay for them. Cheers, 124.170.64.251 (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Dean 12/01/14
 * I don't know much about the availability of his papers; that part was removed because I wasn't willing to sift through your edits to remove what was definitely not correct. The hypothesis, on the other hand, is indeed nonsense. It is not the responsibility of the scientific community to prove Haramein wrong; rather it is Haramein's responsibility to prove himself right. Regardless of whether the blog is anonymous or not, the physics expressed is sound, and Haramein's lack of a successful defence is also telling. Your inference that his model correlates with relativity and quantum mechanics is simply wrong. First off, the closest Haramein gets to talking about quantum mechanics is his use of the vacuum energy. However, the vacuum energy is an unknown quantity at the moment, with a variety of theories suggesting different possible values for it (if it's even measurable, which it may not be). Otherwise, quantum mechanics is incompatible with the behaviour of gravitationally massive objects such as black holes. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the blog correctly points out that Haramein consistently uses the wrong equations to describe the physics involved. He draws on both special relativity and Newtonian mechanics to describe his model, yet both are not valid in the presence of gravitational fields. There is nothing in his work that corroborates in any real sense with general relativity, or if there is, he has yet to show it. Again, it's Haramein's responsibility to show these links, not the scientific community's responsibility to show where they don't exist. - GrantC (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I understand your point about having to sift through my edits. I have made another attempt that I hope you will find more agreeable with the above in mind. That said, I am still seeing some significant flaws in your reasoning.


 * Firstly, you claim his hypothesis is nonsense. I do not see this as an agreeable fact. Sound criticism from a single individual is worth considering, but as I said, it is not an authority on the subject. Haramein made a detailed response to the article in question, which was followed up with a further response from the original writer, and many, many comments from readers. I spent many hours recently reading the content and exploring public views on the matter and again, my understanding is that there is not a consensus on the issue. Claiming that his defence was unsuccessful is not a verifiable fact, as far as I can see.


 * Secondly, my inference that his model correlates with relativity and quantum mechanics is not an inference. It is something that has has demonstrated mathematically and scientifically in his work. You can read about it in the papers that he has published. Just because these papers are not peer reviewed to critical acclaim in the latest scientific journal is not proof that they are inaccurate, and I do not believe they should be dismissed on that fact alone.


 * Thirdly, I do not believe that the closest Haramein gets to talking about quantum mechanics is simply his use of vacuum energy. His model makes a mathematical prediction of the fundamental forces involved in holding the nucleus of an atom together, which he claims are a direct result of his modification of Einstein's field equations and his calculation of the vacuum energy. Wikipedia states that quantum field theory is a theoretical framework for constructing quantum mechanical models of subatomic particles, treating particles as excited states of an underlying physical field. I am not an expert on this topic, but that sounds like exactly what he is working with.


 * Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, as you say, the very contention of his theory is that quantum mechanics is compatible with general relativity and Newtonian mechanics, as well as special relativity. As I mentioned above, his model gives highly accurate results in both particle physics and cosmology, something that no other model has been capable of to date. Again, this has been mathematically and scientifically demonstrated in his papers, and has not, as far as I am aware, been disproven by peer reviewed public scientific consensus. Perhaps I am simply not understanding his propositions, but it seems to me that your claim that he has yet to show such a unification of these otherwise disparate fields of physics is unfounded. I would surely not claim that he has proven anything just yet, but a prima facie case has most certainly been made. Given this apparent unification, your contention that he consistently uses wrong equations to describe his physics can be seen in an entirely different light - he is simply correcting inconsistencies demonstrated by the current standard models. This was the main criticism of the blog article that you mention also, and in my opinion this criticism has not been definitively shown to be true. It is an entirely valid criticism, given the amount of work that has gone into our current understanding of the subject, but it is not grounds for immediate dismissal of his ideas. He is simply presenting a different model, and so far the predictions of that model seem to be credible. Further, there is in fact evidence from other scientific studies that does lend further credibility to his ideas, for example see recent studies of graphene or the latest in quantum entanglement.


 * Finally, I would like to caveat this rant with the following: I do not mean to directly disagree with everything you say. However, I believe myself an expert on logic and reason, and your arguments are triggering the parts of my brain that usually go off when something doesn't fit. The majority of my edits have been humble additions based on entirely verified fact, or to remove things that are clearly not verifiable fact. I appreciate your perspective, to be sure, but as Carl Sagan correctly points out in regard to the once purported theory that the planet Venus came directly out of the planet Jupiter: "The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his ideas were wrong or silly or in gross contradiction to the facts. Rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system, and the history of our study of the solar system shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources." Regards, Dean 124.170.64.251 (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 12/01/14
 * I'm familiar with the last couple studies they quoted, as this is my area of research, and it certainly does not corroborate Haramein's position. The thing is, for something to be considered scientifically mainstream, consensus is not required. If it were, then Deepak Chopra could be considered a reasonable scientist as well. He is not. Ideas are folded into the scientific mainstream as they are tested and their results are proven to be correct, verifiable, and sound.
 * You are indeed misunderstanding Haramein's positions. I'm quite familiar with the various quantum field theories floating around, and none of them are anything like what Haramein is purporting to use, and none of them are even remotely related to Einstein's equations. Nothing has been scientifically and mathematically demonstrated in his papers, as they are based on falsehoods. I'm sorry, but the claim that special relativity works near black holes is patently false. The whole raison d'être of GR is because special relativity breaks down in these cases. Special relativity is actually a special case of GR, where (among a few other details) we take our space-time metric to be the Minkowski metric. This is not a simplification that's valid when we introduce concepts like acceleration and forces.
 * You may choose to disagree with me as much as you would like, but you're completely misunderstanding the way scientific consensus is founded. I am not attempting to "censor" Haramein, but this site will continue to take the view of the scientific consensus. There are legitimate challengers to the Standard Model, such as some supersymmetry theories, but Haramein's is not one of them. - GrantC (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree that Chopra is not a scientist, at the very least :) I am sad to hear you say that the two studies I linked do not lend credibility to Haramein's work. It was my understanding that they may well simply be another way of potentially arriving at the same idea he seems to be getting at about the structure of space-time and how it's connected, but if those are indeed your field of expertise and you entirely disagree with such a proposition then I would not cavil with you on the issue, although I am not entirely convinced simply because you say so either. Hmm. I do, to my credit (I would like to think), have some basic understanding of GR vs SR, and I understand your point that one is used because the other doesn't work. I may well have mixed some of my own misunderstandings in with my explanations; I would not rule that out. I apologise for any confusion as a result; it's quite late and I didn't bother to refresh my memory of that specific subject.


 * I was under the impression that Haramein was presenting a model that does in fact work in both the very small and the very large, and I'm not sure you've directly commented on that point just yet - as I mentioned, his model gives accurate results at both the quantum level and the cosmological level, and seems to be the first to bridge this gap where others have tried so hard without success (eg. Hawking). Perhaps this really is due to his work being based on falsehoods, as you say, that I imagine you would suggest have been manipulated to achieve such results, knowingly or otherwise, in which case perhaps you have addressed that already. Again, a somewhat disheartening thought to me, and one which seems to contradict much of my research on the subject. For example, how do you explain the many glowing reviews of apparently respectable academics on his website? Are these fake testimonials? If so, why have they not been challenged and taken down? If not, why are these apparently intelligent and respectable individuals regarding Haramein with such acclaim? Apparently he runs regular group discussions with many notable scientists and other academics. Are they all being mislead? Haramein himself seems to have at least some modicum of knowledge and understanding on some of the disciplines he employs, such as geometry and ancient history. Is he simply a victim of confirmation bias, drawing inferences through logical fallacy? Is he just a con man? I have followed much of his work, and even taking what you say as fact there is still much that doesn't line up. Oh well. C'est la vie.


 * At any rate, I certainly don't think you're specifically trying to censor anyone. Ultimately, at this point, with what little understanding I have of the greater picture, it is my continued belief that our current understanding of field theory and quantum physics is deeply flawed (that much, at least, seems agreeable to most), and that Haramein's ideas have at the very least some small contribution to offer to this gap in our combined knowledge. I suppose time will tell. In the meantime, I will do my best to keep my edits on this article to that which I do have a relatively solid understanding of. Even if I can't comment directly on the validity of his ideas with regards to advanced physics, I do at least have some knowledge of what he's putting forward, and just because you or even many people don't think there's anything to it certainly shouldn't necessitate complete ignorance of said ideas, in my humble opinion. Dean 124.170.64.251 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue with his model working both for the very small and very loarge is indeed problematic because of the falsehoods at the base of things. To relate it to formal logic, you can prove almost anything (even things that are contradictory) if you loosen the restriction that your premises should be sound. It's very similar in this case. Haramein's premises are not sound, so the fact that his results appear to work is meaningless. I wouldn't be surprised if you have indeed been manipulated, because that is indeed one of the hallmarks of the trademark physics crank. Present math and science that is patently absurd to researchers in the field, yet seems sound to someone without an in-depth understanding/knowledge of physics. As for the academics giving him testimonials, there are a variety of things that could be happening here. First off, scientists are not immune to crankery, and once tenure is achieved, it's fairly hard to lose it. As for those that are not professors, the only requirement to becoming a "scientist" is finishing a degree in the field. Prominence is relative in that. A few months ago I had an argument with a drive-by individual supporting some nonsensical ideas about quantum information, and he kept quoting these "respected scientists". However, I regularly interact with people who actually are the respected researchers in that field, and none of the names he quoted were on that list, though they all purported to be. In that sense, popularity contests can be somewhat difficult to interpret in physics. It's also quite possible that Haramein has some portion of his body of work that is respectable in the mainstream community. Many people have significant respect for Roger Penrose's earlier work, while quietly ignoring the stuff he has been spouting recently. This is not uncommon in science, unfortunately, especially once tenure is a given.


 * I would be somewhat careful. Quantum physics is one of the most complete and accurate theories in physics right now, and I would not at all call our understanding of it flawed. The issue comes when we expand that topic to quantum field theories, which, in part, have been developed to help bridge the gap with GR. At this point, it's uncertain whether there's another "larger" theory that would connect the two (such that GR and quantum mechanics are special cases), or whether one is incorrect (though it seems that GR is more likely to be incorrect than quantum mechanics if we take that view). Time will indeed tell if Haramein has contributions worth noting, but at the moment, I don't believe that's the case, and neither does the scientific community at large. I do appreciate your politeness and understanding in this matter. A significant part of the problem with stuff like this is that many hardcore believers of certain ideas (Chopra comes to mind) are perfectly willing to believe that their knowledge of things like quantum physics is complete and can't possibly be challenged by real scientists. It's refreshing to be dealing with someone who actually has some respect for the scientific procedure, so thank you for that! - GrantC (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You're most welcome :) In hindsight, I imagine my confidence in Haramein's work was overstated (perhaps even unfounded). I am generally the first person to be skeptical of pseudoscience, or anything that appears illogical to me at all for that matter. I do take his propositions with a large grain of salt. I also understand what you say about the nature of belief and popular consensus when it comes to who is an expert at what and so on; the unfortunate truth is that almost nobody has the interdisciplinary knowledge to be able to comment on each and every field relating to an idea, and quite often ideas from one are illogically carried to another (Chopra does indeed come to mind).


 * One small point: you say that our understanding of quantum physics is rather complete, but I was under the impression that the strong force, for example, was simply a name for something that we really can't otherwise explain - we measured the amount of force required to hold a nucleus of an atom together and said, well, they're together, so that much force must be applying from somewhere, and it seems pretty strong, so let's call it the strong force (I do love science for naming, Neil Degrasse Tyson has a lovely rant on the subject on YouTube if you haven't seen it yet). And then we found that protons were made of quarks and said, well, okay, the strong force must just be some residual amount of the main force that holds quarks together. But we still have no idea where that force comes from, right? And then enter Haramein, who calculates that that the amount of gravity involved in a proton-sized black hole just so happens to match the strong force exactly. Ah, the lure of confirmation bias! A romantic little theory, I must confess. But belief, indeed, would be folly. I shall remain skeptic.


 * Finally, just wanted to add that in light of your comments and the nature of the site as conforming to scientific consensus (and some additional reading to better inform my understanding of the site in general), I am quite happy with the reversions of my recent edits that you have made, and quite appreciative of those you didn't :) - and perhaps this discussion and the results of it can be an example for anyone else wondering about the contention of the issue. Pleasure doing business with you. Dean 124.170.64.251 (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a common problem in the sciences, and one not often well understood by the populace at large. Scientists squabble as much as anyone else does, and some of the more useful developments in science are developed over beers at a pub, or in a chance meeting in a hallway. A good example of that is the Gottesman–Knill theorem, which was developed through a response to an email. This has the issue of making most of the deliberations behind many scientific theories impossible to follow, and it allows some folks to very easily pretend to be stand-up members of the scientific community. To an outside observer, this may appear true, but to researchers in the field who are familiar with the email conversations and crazy stories behind what led to these developments, the difference is vast and obvious.


 * The answer to your question about the strong force is quantum chromodynamics. Much like most of particle physics, it's almost unintelligible to most folks who don't have a background in the subject. Also, to tie things in nicely with some of my previous points, it's an example of a quantum field theory that does quite well and is fairly well understood. Of course, much like most topics in physics, it's a bit difficult to categorize this (the naming of theories is just as silly as the naming of forces, as it happens), since one could describe quantum chromodynamics as, alternatively: quantum mechanics, a quantum field theory, particle physics, and a part of the Standard Model. All of those descriptions are true, though they each talk about different things. This only adds to the confusion, of course. Note that I say "a quantum field theory" for a good reason, as there are many such theories depending on which gauge you choose to work in. For the most part, you can think of most quantum field theories as "basic" quantum mechanics plus special relativity, but that is also an oversimplified answer. As you say, this complicated landscape makes a simple hypothesis like Haramein's attractive, especially when everything seems to work so nicely. However, Haramein chooses the mass of his Schwarzchild proton such that its Compton wavelength is the same as the experimental values derived from the proton. It's not surprising that the forces work out to be similar (though there's still a factor of 100 difference between his gravitational force and the strong nuclear force, so it's not exact).


 * For what it's worth, I'm also appreciative that this didn't become an edit war. I don't claim to be perfectly knowledgeable on these subjects, and it has certainly been enjoyable brushing up on some of these concepts that I haven't looked at in a couple years. Pleasure doing business with you as well! :) - GrantC (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Quantum chromodynamics, eh. Hmm! I was not aware of this. Thanks for the link. Fascinating stuff ... I particularly note that it claims only two symmetrically inverted principles, one of which involves the infinite expansion of energy forever bound as a single entity, and the other asymptotic regression towards the infinitesimal. I wonder what Mr Haramein would have to say about that ;) Dean 124.148.44.159 (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, I wonder what he would say indeed! Tossing out the Standard Model seems easy enough at face value, but the number of other (often very well supported) theories you have to toss out in the process gets fairly large. QCD is an example of that, as a significant amount of physical evidence at both the macroscopic and microscopic levels supports the theory these days. After all, the Standard Model is more just a name for the list of particles and forces we expect to see (excepting gravity at the moment), and it acts as an umbrella over the physical theories that govern those forces/interactions (e.g. QCD for the strong force, QED for the EM force). - GrantC (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The level in mathematics of Nassim Haram
I read the last article of Nassim Haramein ; I won't even try to explain you his theory, but just consider that it takes him 3 or 4 lines of calculation to develop very simple formulas. A typical example : A=B/C (1) D=A/B (2) By injecting (1) in (2) we obtain : D=1/C

Even a 12 years old pupils would be able to write such formlas... honestly, Nassim Haramein doesn't seem to be serious at all.
 * I don't think it's possible to explain his theory, since it's based on flawed assumptions and bad mathematics. I won't comment on whether or not he's serious, but he certainly seems to be trying to make a living off of this. - Grant (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Extract and condense please
I appreciate the exchange between Dean and GrantC. Grant, you made some points that are what I have been looking for. My first visit to this page was awhile back when it had nothing but insults and no math or science, which to me completely discredited it. It has improved some, but the info that helps me understand why Haramein is so insulted is still buried. I would greatly appreciate it if you could extract and condense info from the talk page, like his choosing a mass for the proton, the collection of theories that would have to be thrown out, QCD, the way the theories/equations don't work in the presence of gravity, etc. and put it on the main entry page. I know it's difficult to explain to non-experts, but we need more than "that's just stupid." I have had experience with people calling themselves rational and scientific who were actually just scared and closed minded, so I prefer it when people show the math when talking about math, know what I mean? ;) Haramein does show his math but I obviously don't know enough math to know what he is manipulating to a fault.  For instance, he said something about a value (for energy in a volume of space?) scientists haven't been using because it was too large, so they left it out, and when he put it back in, his equations worked.  I will have to rewatch the video to get the specific value he used.  I really appreciate your help to present specifics without the drama.  Is he doing something radical, that upsets people who cling to what they know and have invested their careers in so will fight against irrationally (which is what it sounds like when they just say he's a Coast to Coast guest as evidence of being a crank.)  Or is there an actual flaw or misinterpretation he is using?  Or is he using a different interpretation that is challenging and may turn out to be better understood and accepted someday? I've heard people say about his work "you can't do that" - why not? Grant, you started to have the why not. Thank you. Please make it more accessible! &mdash; Unsigned, by: 99.167.198.35 / talk / contribs
 * I can try, but I haven't had much time for editing lately. There are definitely flaws in his work, and I would like to see this value you're talking about. In physics, the standard procedure is to remove expansion terms that are too small to have any effect. The only time one generally removes extremely large terms is when a solution yields unphysical results. For example, if you were to calculate the electric potential of some charge volume, you wouldn't expect the electric potential to grow exponentially with increasing distance from the volume. If a method of solving a differential equation produces multiple solutions, it becomes necessary to weed out the solution that doesn't represent physical behaviour. - Grant (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Google Video link is dead
Can anyone find another source for the video referencing the claim for the crop circles?--ZooGuard (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nutty Roux (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

TALK: Nassim Haramein no facts just character assisination
This is outrageous, this is supposedly a factual site. the nassim haramein page is purely opinion from someone who does not agree with nassim's theory's there is no actual proof within the page that nassim is a 'crank' how can rationalwiki allow this? everytime i try to edit it gets changed back. this is absolutely outrageous, i intend to inform people of how untruthfull this site is. there is nothing worse than the destruction of truth. shame on you rationalwiki 23:45, 17 July 2014‎ (UTC)

I would add one thing to it. It seems that for many Haramein's theory opponents it is enough to depreciate his theory when: a) Haramein is not a mainstream physicist or is not welcomed by mainstream physicists' society, b) his maths are simple, c) he is not graduated in maths or physics. If this defines the boundary conditions for a significant discovery to be possible, well, it would mean a very narrow minded point of view. Better consider how it is possible that some of the recent experimental data are coherent with Haramein theoretical predictions (like proton radius prediction). And try to think outside the box.
 * Thinking outside the box is not a good thing to do when the box is thinking. King Skeleton (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

TALK:This article is junk

 * The reason why Nassim uses Newtownian equations is DUE to his modifications of field theory equations, adding torque** - **the one single scientific critique on this crap article**

I am not allowed to add this line - it keeps getting removed.

It is entirely ungeniune to evaluate claims without evaluating them in the framework that they are presented, yes? This is like looking at black hole evidence and saying its impossible while simultaneously **ignoring the Swarzschild solution**

First, Nassim has a total response to BobAThons claims - that's conveniently missing.

Bob's first critique of the Swarzschild Proton is to state that the holographic mass is too massive - while totally disregarding the actual theory of the holographic principle, which makes his first point utterly non-sensible. This is like critiquing the mathematical evidence of black holes while at the same time ignoring the actual theoretical explanation of a black hole.

This is a dogmatic artlce that's 95% Ad Hominem attacks.

There is mathematics from Nassim's papers that's not explained, at all. For one, calculating the mass required to satisfy the strong force, pefectly, with simple orbital equations when using the Swarzschild proton mass. Here is a depiction

http://i.imgur.com/la2Prln.png

Now in current standard model theories, protons obviously do not orbit anything. So somebody has to explain not only the perfect mass derived to satisfy the strong force (by the way, his calculations were initially based on a CODATA measurement proton charge radius - when a new value of the proton charge radius was release by the Paul Scherrer institute, Nassim's derived mass approximated the CODATA mass .072%. This is a 24 digit number, computer by the proton radius in a simple holographic equation, that gets more accurate the more accurate our proton charge radius measurements get.) along with orbital equations yielding the strong force interaction time and nuclear emission rates, they also have to explain countless other anomalous results before this can be considered debunked at all. By the way, this explains the strong force in a mechanical nature, and not a perfectly invented theoretical particle called a gluon that perfectly matches the force required to make the standard model function.

Not to mention this theory reconciles the vacuum catastrophe, and the problem with the cosmological constant that has been dubbed the worst prediction in physics of QFT. The holographic mass is not able to be measured in the standard model because every proton is connected to the same vacuum singularity. It's a relativity problem.

This mass distributed to planck units on the surface of the event horizon is the exact mass required for gravitation! Numerology. With 40-60 zeroes. Over and over. That matches a pre-developed framework. That's pretty impressive, don't you think?

This is the holographic principle the named debunker completely disregarded in his critique, again - non-sensible.

These are two small snippets, which prove there is something here. If not, somebody would have to explain how counting planck units, and using a generalized holographic principle equation can yield anything like these numbers. To say numerology is to fail at doing science. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 76.99.60.130‎ / talk / contribs 00:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

correction to this page needed
The information about Nassim Haramein needs to be updated. His theory is gaining more mainstream support.12/1/2014. Phxmarker (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)phxmarker
 * That would surprise me, given that I keep a close eye on new updates in the major physics journals. Can you show me where said support is? - Grant (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

RationaWiki Misinformation on Haramein
This section needs a rewrite to rationally and logically deal with this information on Nassim Haramein.

It, this RationalWiki page, uses ad hominums rather than focusing on issues. It is very irrational to present information the way being done here.

Coming from a rational and logical viewpoint, when one focuses on the unsolved physics problems which are well documented, Nassim's theory is resolving many of the unsolved problems.

Nassim's theory is based upon mainstream cosmology, science, and physics, and simply restates the underlying assumptions more completely and wholly, in harmony with Einstein, Newton, Maxwell, and all that came before, building upon the foundation, keeping what works...

So, either fix it now, or wait until an embarrasingly late time when the incompetence of this "RationalWiki" site is exposed.

Phxmarker (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)phxmarker


 * We'll wait. King Skeleton (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said just above, if you can provide proof of all of this, I'll be happy to change the relevant details. Show me his publications in the major physics journals that are accepted in mainstream science. - Grant (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"Connected Universe" Doco Campaign - Fraud?

 * Has anyone looked into the "Connected Universe" film/doco that nassim is currently raising funds for?
 * https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-connected-universe-film#/story
 * 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 :) &mdash; Unsigned, by: 120.23.128.240 / talk 07:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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)