There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
The blogs that debunked this guy
- 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)
A new "documentary"
Crowd-funded, of course: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-connected-universe-film --ZooGuard (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
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:
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=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 http://hiup.org/publications)
- science #physics #feynman #nassimharamein #bozon
/r/holofractals is mad
They also question whether science requires things like "equations", and presumably hypothesis testing as well. FuzzyCatPotato of the Well-to-do Imitation vomits (talk/stalk) 18:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Article misinformation and notable omissions
The article refers to a paper written by Nassim Haramein, Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass, that was submitted for peer review in the journal Physical Review and Research International, part of Science Domain International, which the author claims will publish anything for simply providing a fee, discrediting their process of peer review. In fact, Science magazine performed a 'sting' operation on open access journals and Science Domain International was whitelisted as having an authentic peer review process, rejecting the fake science paper that was submitted by the magazine to another of SDI's journals, British Journal of Pharmaceutical Research:
You can download a PDF of the peer review results of Haramein's Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass here:
As the article was written to dismiss his work as pseudoscience, it failed to mention that Haramein's predictions about the charge radius of the proton were confirmed by other scientists only a month after he copyrighted this paper.
'Shortly after Haramein’s submission of his paper to the Library of Congress, on January 25th 2013 a new muonic measurement of the proton was made which agreed with Haramein’s prediction extremely well (within 0.000366 x 10-13cm of the measured value), as the prediction is inside one standard deviation of the experiment, or loosely speaking within the margin of error of the experiment. Therefore, Haramein’s value, extrapolated from precise theoretical tenets, may be the exact value and experiments are now approaching the resolution necessary to arrive to it.'
In summary, this article shows how misinformation and an obviously biased approach contribute to limiting scientific progress, as the above information clearly shows there is validity to Haramein's work. He has been wrongly maligned by sections of the scientific community and only now is starting to be taken seriously. This article is invalid and should be amended to give an accurate picture of the truth. — Unsigned, by: Marcus Hoffman / talk / contribs