Nassim Haramein answers his critics with respect and logic

On July 2, 2010 – Nassim Haramein answered some of his critics with respect and logic on his daily blog.   His Ideas on physics and supernatural problems are worth a look for any researchers looking for possible answers.  We are posting Nassim’s post in its entirety below.   You can visit his website at  http://www.theresonanceproject.org/

Letter to Dr. Bob-a-thon,

I wanted to start with thanking Dr. Bob-a-thon for his efforts in elucidating some of the mathematical topological problems I hadn’t had time or interest to address. I typically avoid wasting my time participating in these so-called debunking sessions. However, as I can see that the gentleman has invested substantial efforts in this particular example, and because it is such a prime and typical expression of the reactionary tendencies defending against all odds the status quo and proclaiming it as “the truth”, I feel obligated to reply.

I’d like to clarify however that these tendencies are usually found at a certain level of scientific development which typically includes professors at college level that do an excellent job at regurgitating previously accredited work, but don’t necessarily understand the process of discovering new science, and certainly new physics, in this case. This process, unlike what is described in the gentleman’s comments below his article, is a process of creative thinking and application that determine the adequacy of the fundamental concepts of a theory prior to the notability typically associated with previously established theories. I am sorry, but the true scientific process does not include personal attacks, character assassinations and name-calling. Although these methods are commonly found in today’s scientific communities, they are certainly not an appropriate way to conduct science or to conduct oneself as a professional in any field of expertise. New ideas that may seem completely alien to a current approach indeed may become the standard of tomorrow.

In certain spheres of physics, and I assure you, they’re not so common, creative thoughts and concepts that are far from the standard view are encouraged and dialoged. How else could science evolve? However from a certain perspective, the new thoughts or the unusual approach appears as a slap in the face to the current popular and accepted theories. In the case of unification theory, it is even more dramatic, as many physicists across the globe agree, it is clear after almost 100 years of searching, that a significant change most likely is necessary either to the field equations, or to quantum theory, or even to both, in order to reconcile fundamental issues that have been plaguing physics for over a century. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics) And as we will see below, these problems are non-trivial (and I mean that in a mathematical reasoning sense)!

As such, most of these creative ideas, as seen throughout history, typically come from outside, independent thinkers who blindside the academic institutions: Einstein being the most famous example, as he published what were considered to be extremely controversial views at the time, while working as a third class clerk at the Burn patent office. The same man later authored, while recollecting the difficulties he encountered in publishing and getting acceptance for his ideas: “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

25 Responses for “Nassim Haramein answers his critics with respect and logic”

  1. Jamie says:


    You are part of the problem with your dogma and “no can do” attitude. You and the other self-proclaimed high priests of the status quo science establishment are in for a big wake up call when you realize that in all your self professed clarity and truth, you’ve been purposefully manipulated to negatively influence the mass consciousness and hold back the progress of humanity in fields which could bring free energy tech, and alleviate human suffering. Open your mind to new possibilities “doctor” (speaking of phonies…real doctors heal people, you’re just a preacher) . https://nohiggs.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/science-or-fiction/

  2. apple says:

    Bobathron I agree with most of hareims claims, but I believe the atom is in fact a spiritual apple, I have no mathematical claim for it, but you know what ? F#$% it, because mathmaticians are just all stupid academics who are attatched to their paradox, and all geniouses like me and “Einstein” do not abide by these rules therefore you cannot debunk me with your hate! If you stopped being such an idiot and reading your books that contain nothing but stupid theories that have nothing but experimentation to back them up, you would sit down with me and my UFO and realise how we are all an apple!

  3. Alex says:

    I have always said that superstition, ignorance and violence is not a by-product of religion, it is is the result of human mind not functioning clearly and openly. It can be seen anywhere in different forms and scientific communities are no exeption. In fact we have seen many superstitious dogmas in the form of science. However, science is a valuable tool for humanity. I follow many scientists and science articles and lectures as much as I can and always keep an open mind. I have read many personal attacks on Nasim Haramein which looks childish such as not having any credentials or he is fake or a gentlman dicarding him because he called newtons law physics law. I encourage everyone to have an open mind and bring logical impersonal discussions which will be productive. A person who is attacking is full of hate and it means somewhere he is loosing business or credibility to that I would say it is time for humanity to mature up. If our scientists or pwople of science conduct themselves in savage ways what is expected of the rest of humanity even though many of them are more intelligent and humane than many so called people in so called scientific circles. to the spirit of openness and to prosperity for all humanity.
    thank you

  4. Kyle says:


    Professional not unprofessional

    Please excuse my grammer

  5. Kyle says:

    Michio kaku says that our models of GR and QP explain themselves beautifully but not each other and there in lies the problem. How can the extremely large be made up of the extremely small and have no relation in the math? This seems to imply that there is a mistake in our understanding of these things. That being said, I don’t think NH has unlocked the secrets of the universe but I do like the fact that he is trying to shed light on the massive holes in said theories. Regardless of the validity of NH’s claims I do appreciate the alternative view and don’t think calling someone a fraud, hack, charliton, manipulative or a conn man based on having an different or even misguided view is very unprofessional regardless of your title(physicist) or educational background. The man who derived the base for which all of these theories are derived(Einstein)was infact not educated in the standard system. So denouncing someone on that premis is absurd in my opinion.



  6. cars says:

    The process of buying a car can be extremely taxing.

    Some people might not know a lot about cars, but there are
    others who know too much and constantly feel like they aren’t getting a good deal. You can get the best car at the best price by following this advice.

  7. jh says:

    Seems to me that bobathon’s criticism of haraeims work is well executed. haramein needs to answer theses questions and provide some evidence to back up his claims before he can be taken seriously. well done bob, job well done here!

  8. pier luigi says:

    Hey guys….why Nassim Haramein win the Best Paper Award whith the Schwarzchild Proton?

  9. bobathon says:

    The Einstein quote about vibrations being lowered is fake, by the way. I’ve no idea where it came from, but scientists don’t talk about “vibration” in a New Agey language like that. If they did, they’d know that mass relates to far higher (not lower) frequencies than any other form of energy we experience.

    If you look on the web, you’ll notice that it’s typically only quoted by New Age sites, who are keen to accept whatever suits their opinions; and it’s never quoted by academic scientists or historians, because an important aspect of science and history is to look beneath the surface of a claim before repeating it.

    I’d love it if more people would realise that if something agrees with their current ideas, it doesn’t make it true, and that this really matters. Accepting whatever agrees with our opinions and rejecting what doesn’t is the source of all prejudice in the world. I can’t think of anything more valuable right now than letting go of fixed views about reality and looking deeply at things with fresh eyes.

    Ideologies are appropriate for the insecure. The real world is never that simple.

    If we don’t interrogate our own views, they become stale. They demand to be fed similar views, which we have to filter carefully, and we sink into delusion without even being aware of it.

    If we hold our views lightly, question them, adjust them and correct them as we learn, we keep them fresh and vital and in tune with reality. If that’s what we want.


  10. bobathon says:

    Hi Shaka. You’re right to point out that the huge flaws with Nassim’s work are not clear to those who don’t have the time or inclination to look too deeply into the issues, or don’t choose to explore the logic or concepts or subject matter to any depth. That is why he has the followers he has.

    Regarding your points – Nassim’s flaws are not grammatical. Look at the section where your example came from http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html#s2 and you’ll see that I have filled several pages with nonsensical mistake after nonsensical mistake from a single 10-minute clip of one of his presentations. Ten minutes! And that is just one example. It’s hardly clutching at straws to find idiotic things that he’s said.

    The 885 metric tonnes figure is not mine, it is from Haramein’s paper. It doesn’t matter whether you treat it in terms of mass or in terms of energy (as you correctly say, they are equivalent), it is still absurd. If energy is confined, it is mass.

    Newtons are not a unit of energy, so the thing you kind-of remember doesn’t make any sense, and neither does “the amount of energy that may be just differently folded stirs in the electromagnetic field “. I can see you’ve picked up some ideas that you like, and ideas are essential to physics, but physics is meaningless without understanding and clarity. Without a deeper understanding and a concern for clarity you will not be able to distinguish science from stories.

  11. ShakaAzule says:

    Dear Bobathon,
    Hello & greetings, I see you fellows are immersed in a debate that seems to be at quite a hualt with all that data that nobody has all the time in the world to review. I’m just gonna spend snippets of time, so I apologize for not reading out your argument in full, but I’m here, hired off my own self and with an account created just for this conversation, to talk with ya and see if we can gain more ground.

    First off, I see what you mean; our century is riddled (well, maybe not riddled, but full enough) of people groping for fame and fancy by the strings of their followers. What are apparently science cults spring out of crannies if given half a chance. As grandson to a magician who is in the know of both skeptic and conspiracy conventions, I am well aware what the art of deception is, and how it can be played with words, actions, policy, or just about anything else that catches the eye. You may be pointing us to Nassim when he’s pointing at a logical link, but it’s right to do so nonetheless. If part, if none, or if all of what he says is false, it may be due to incomplete functions or misconceived functions, but, ho, one should be ware the fallacies our psychology conjures up when we take something as false from the face of it, whether it was because we didn’t like the tone, or it seemed too much like all those others who cried “Answer to the cosmic missing link!”, or just because it doesn’t mesh well with what’s the obvious, simple truth (as we see it, see the psychological list for biases, as I remember them in concept not name). I’ve only read the first link you gave so far, as you put it, Nassim’s misunderstandings.
    I’ll bring up my thoughts on just a couple of the things you said.

    “First off, a mass can’t exceed an escape velocity. That’s like saying there’s more corn in your barn than the national speed limit – it doesn’t make sense. I think he’s trying to say that there is so much mass in the Universe that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Perhaps it just came out mangled.”
    ~I think the meaning here is important, as you may notice, Nassim is speaking in a language that he’s less used to than you are; I think what you said is right that it just came out mangled. Jumbled might be a better word, but the important part, relevant to this debate, is none that does anything but point out grammar flaws. The problem with your case being that you’re prone to see any chink in the armor of Nassim’s speech as definite proof that he the fraud that you truly know he must be. But watch out, dear defender of truth, or, Bob, that you jump from any one discontinuance between the well known and the proposed as false, regardless if it’s just a matter of speach.

    I lied and did read what you said about the swartzchild proton, hoewever it’s spelled. You put about that a black whole would have to be exactly 885 metric tonnes to be the size of the wavelength of a proton. I’m not a physicist to the caliber that should be discussing this but I think I’ll quote one who is:
    “Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” ~Albert Einstein
    So before we assume that a black whole must be massive, let’s consider Nassim’s argument that the swartzchild proton seems to have a near infinite amount of energy within it; I remember something about 10 to the 93rd newtons cropping up in physics as the amount of energy some such particle had, (you may correct this, or properly site, if you have the means and the time) as I have taken that from the information nassim presented, I’m assuming he is not lying or siting false information, for the sake of his entire life’s work, he has not the motivation, nor the reason to dash it all in something false like that. Regardless, it’s the amount of energy that may be just differently folded stirs in the electromagnetic field which acts as a black hole, a matter of energy, not of weight, heh, literally.

    I hope you don’t find me to brief in passing, I’ve only responded to part of your argument, but I’ve actually done so, so burn me, or thank me, or respond in kind.
    Yours honestly; Shaka A. Sickels

  12. bobathon says:

    Curious-g, I’ve presented a selection of his basic misunderstandings here: http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html#s2
    The claims of the Schwarzschild Proton are straightforwardly wrong: http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/schwarzchild-proton.html
    As are his absurd claims about phi spirals: http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/some-mathematics-relating-to-phi.html
    There are many many more. I’ve not heard him give a single talk involving mathematics or physics without some major misunderstanding entering into it.
    For other discussions, please see http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/104673-The-Acceleration-Due-To-Gravity-Inside-The-Nucleus or http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141534 or http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/1792-anomalies-physics-ufos-psi.html#post37594 or http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4940-ark-covenant-replications-study.html#post75026 or http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1251881447/all (these are by involve other people, they’re not all expressing views I agree with but interesting nonetheless.)
    I haven’t made any comments on crop circles. Unlike Haramein, I don’t believe in discussing things in public unless I understand them very well. But having observed him discussing physics, I see absolutely no grounds to trust him to tell an accurate story on anything when he can please his fans more by jumping to sensationalist conclusions instead.

  13. bobathon says:

    Curious-g, I’ve presented a selection of his basic misunderstandings here: http://bit.ly/aWGy5z
    The claims of the Schwarzschild Proton are straightforwardly wrong: http://bit.ly/schproton
    As are his absurd claims about phi spirals: http://bit.ly/b67uM0
    There are many many more. I’ve not heard him give a single talk involving mathematics or physics without some major misunderstanding entering into it.
    For other discussions, please see http://bit.ly/bgzBGo or http://bit.ly/bKd9ad or http://bit.ly/b41Xko or http://bit.ly/9NwSbq or http://bit.ly/bsIehx (these are by involve other people, they’re not all expressing views I agree with but interesting nonetheless.)
    I haven’t made any comments on crop circles. Unlike Haramein, I don’t believe in discussing things in public unless I understand them very well. But having observed him discussing physics, I see absolutely no grounds to trust him to tell an accurate story on anything when jumping to sensationalist conclusions will do.

  14. curious-g says:

    er… bobathon… uh, what for example did you find that made it clear Haramein understands very little of his talk ?

    and which scientific claims can be shown to be straightforwardly wrong ? seemed right on as far as i remember physics classes.

    and do you feel the crop formations were not really exhibiting key values of tetrahedrons or fractals ?


  15. bobathon says:

    Textbooks aren’t sacred, and my criticisms have nothing to do with any “initial disrespect” or judgementalism.

    Like I said, I can only hope that people will investigate his ideas thoroughly, and the criticisms of them, and weigh them on their merits, not on how much they want them to be true.

    When I did this – and I did it very carefully and sincerely, with a lot of thought and consideration – I found it to be overwhelmingly clear that Haramein understands very little of what he’s talking about, and yet claims to be an authority. The disrespect comes in at that point, for the very simple reason that what he is doing is a disreputable thing to do.

    And I found that, in addition to this, his theories give absurd conclusions, however you look at them. I didn’t think that keeping quiet about this would be at all a ‘respectful’ thing to do.

    I explained my reasoning very openly in my blog, and laid it out as clearly and as honestly as I can. I know I can’t expect it to please everyone.

  16. bobathon says:

    Textbooks aren’t sacred, and my criticisms have nothing to do with any “initial disrespect” or judgementalism.

    Like I said, I can only hope that people will investigate his ideas thoroughly, and the criticisms of them, and weigh them on their merits, not on how much they want them to be true.

    When I did this – and I did it very carefully, with a lot of thought and consideration – I found it to be overwhelmingly clear that Haramein understands little of what he’s talking about, and yet claims to be an authority. The disrespect comes in at that point, my friend, for the very simple reason that what he is doing is a disreputable thing to do.

    AND I found that his theories give absurd conclusions anyway, however you look at them.

    I’ve explained all this in detail, with all my reasoning. It’s all there for anyone who’s interested enough to explore it, and not afraid that the world will crumble beneath their feet if their favourite guru turns out to be wrong.

    I don’t have any issue with people who’ve seen UFOs at all. There are clearly many things that physics doesn’t have clear answers to. But I don’t see why seeing a UFO would make you believe a theory that tells you that every atom has a mass of 885 million tons. Seeing something extraordinary is going to have a powerful effect on someone, but I don’t think that grabbing hold of the nearest pseudo nonsense you come across is the best way to deal with it.

  17. Babel says:

    Bob, 25 years ago I walked the same line as you… I argued and debated anyone who contradicted my “true” science. Made fun of and even ridiculed anyone who did not believe in science as taught in my sacred textbooks, Science I knew to be correct. Used terms like “fantastic imaginations” “conspiracy theories” “Needy people” about all the UFO nuts and religious people who did not believe in an evolutionary “philosophy”. And then one evening I was an eyewitness at a UFO sighting with many of my family members – a metallic saucer shaped vehicle with colored lights and even the white dome! right out of the movie Mars Attacks! – and at less than 40 yards It defied Physics as I understood. This event threw a philosophical and simultaneously scientific wrench into my “world view”. It instantly put me in with a group of “nuts”. I researched both this phenomenon and many of our scientific “theories” over the years and I dare say this digging into the facts has made me a much less “judgmental” person. I am glad you have acknowledged your initial disrespect. I hope that respect works its way into future dialogue with Nassim Haramein.

    • Geo says:

      Your use of “sacred textbooks” is a dysphemism and a dishonest tactic in debate.

      • Babel says:

        using words like “dysphemism” only other rationals understand is what I would call deceptive and a typical tactic used by those who wish to change the debate. I was taught Evolution as a child. I believed my instructors. My textbooks were “Sacred” to me. And yet this theory still remains a theory? A theory that I am sure you believe to be true? Is that not using your unproven science as a philosophical psuedo religion? Harramein has simply put out some wonderful and intuitive “theories”. Your brilliance amazes me…You have certainly already won this argument with in the confinement of your own mind. babel

  18. bobathon says:

    I’m not trying to control science, that’s really silly. :-)

    I’m being pretty straightforward. Haramein’s ‘science’ is plain wrong; but some people are attracted to it and become very attached to it.

    Those that are convinced by him are far more likely to be the ones that don’t understand the science that he’s claiming to base it upon. You may have noticed this?

    Fans of his can either look very carefully at why they’re so convinced he’s right, or they can plug their ears and demonise anyone who suggests that he doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about. I’m hoping they’ll actually take the time to investigate the ideas thoroughly, including criticisms of them.

    I know you guys have fantastic imaginations and love your conspiracy theories and invented battles, but sometimes things are a lot more plain and simple. If you don’t see a respectful debate, it might just be because he’s not respected; and there may well be a very straightforward reason for that.

  19. Babel says:

    bobathon, I have not once criticized your physics. I am not outraged. I am simply a person that believes “words mean things” and progress can only be made with respectful debate. Your tactics and contradictions (thank you for acknowledging them) may bring people insights into your reasons for this battle you have chosen. An apology followed by deeper veiled insults is not an apology…. it is a tactic used by those who wish to control “science” to their (personal) understanding. Just read Albert Einsteins last letter to Velikovsky which I posted a week ago.

    You my friend are a self described member of this “Guild” Einstein speaks about, people with good science, and yet an unwillingness to look at other possibilities. It seems “Nassim Haramein has lit a fire beneath your toes” Your science is “currently” sound, your meaning I believe is to protect “the truth” as you understand it, a noble but selfish pursuit – I advise you to temper your name calling & emotions in the future. Imagine a science great such as Albert Einstein afraid of letting his Guild (Established Physics Academia) even know that “Velikovsky” was a friend and a favorite author to which Einstein personally notated manuscripts (shame on the physics academia of his time). These tactics, inherent to a “Global Academia Temperament” have been around for a long, long time…….But God/Creation/Evolution (or what ever you may believe) gives us Human Beings freewill and an opportunity to correct our paths. If your intent is to teach people proper “Physics” you will get much further with a respectful debate.

  20. bobathon says:

    Babel, I explained in detail why Haramein’s physics is nonsense and his claims are bogus. He sells himself as a scientist. In that context, calling him ‘a pseudoscientist’ is not name-calling any more than referring to the president as ‘a president’ is name-calling.

    I apologised because I had accused Haramein of lying, and he protested that he believed in what he did. I have apologised for that, because it’s conceivable that he does actually believe in it. But if he does believe in all the things he speaks about, then it raises an even bigger question, because his claims can easily be shown to be straightforwardly wrong, especially his scientific ones, and he continues to pretend that they’re immune to criticism and promote them as if they are fact.

    It’s perfectly honest and logical to call a fake when you see one, even if it upsets the people who believe he’s right. And I think it’s better to be respectful to the truth than to someone who leads people away from it.

    I can see you didn’t like what I was saying, but being outraged at the details of the wording of my criticism won’t alter the fact that it’s easy to show that his ‘science’ and the claims on which he sells his stories are absolutely bogus.

    • Geo says:

      I’m with Bob on this one. I read both responses and Haramein’s reaks of arrogance and comes across as passive aggressive. If something is fake, calling it fake in someone’s honest estimation is not an insult. Haramein can explain why he thinks Bob is wrong, just like Bob explained why he believes Haramein is wrong, but instead there was nothing more than thinly veiled ad hominem nonsense. Ad hominem is a fallacy of logic, so to claim he answered his critic with logic is also false, and my saying that you don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to logic would not be an insult but my honest opinion.

  21. Babel says:

    Bobathon replies with a link above to a “response” to Nassim Haramein’s response with “some” respect, while short on “honesty” and lacking some basic “logic”…… please see below.

    Bobathon writes early in his column….

    “””Irony aside, I’m curious as to what name-calling he might be referring to on my part. I can sympathise if he doesn’t like the words fraud or fake or pseudoscientist.”””

    DOES IT TAKE CURIOSITY TO FIGURE OUT “FAKE” “FRAUD” or even PSEUDOSCIENTIST to be considered NAME CALLING? bobathon then waits till the end of his post to write the following “apology”:

    “””An apology to Mr Haramein

    Before I finish, though, I do – in all seriousness – want to apologise for one thing that I have said. Not because I’m worried about legal consequences or anything like that, but because I think I’ve been unfair.

    “I did use the word “manipulative”, and also words such as “lying” or “deceitful”, to describe Haramein’s approach to presenting physics.,,,,,It’s perfectly plausible that Haramein does have such an inflated sense of his work that he believes that he’s doing serious science research, ,”””

    WOW… does that look like an apology? it is simply dishonest, disrespectful and most importantly it lacks “logic” when someone contradicts themselves not only in the same post but on the same paragraph….


  22. bobathon says:

    You can find Bob’s reply to Nassim here:

    All may not be as it seems…

Comments are closed