Nassim Haramein answers his critics with respect and logic
In his point #1, the first and second paragraph clearly attempt to discredit the validity of the CASYS’09 Conference because of the gentleman’s unfamiliarity with this event and insinuates that the postings on my website mislead people to believe that it was an award given for all of physics where it is made clear that the award was given to The Schwarzschild Proton paper for the section of the CASYS’09 Conference in the field of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation” which took place at the University of Liege in Belgium. http://www2.ulg.ac.be/mathgen/CHAOS/
Furthermore, it is clear that the gentleman didn’t take the time to go and investigate the program timetable to examine the other papers that my paper was competing against as he didn’t seem to know how many were submitted in this particular section. The gentleman is correct in asserting that not so many papers would be found there (approximately 20) as not many people in this world have either the capacity to work at this level, or the leisure to find the time to do in depth investigation of extremely difficult problems that were found insurmountable by some of the greatest thinkers in our history.
The papers that were submitted this year were of very high quality from researchers from a wide international community and very reputable institutions. This is nothing unusual for the CASYS Conference physics section, as previous years have seen Nobel Prize Laureates participate, such as in CASYS’07 where I presented as well. As such, I was quite surprised to find my paper winning the Best Paper Award as it was competing against veteran physicists and researchers, including papers from the director of the conference himself. How much did the selection committee know about physics? I don’t know. However, the quality of the physics papers that have been submitted certainly demands that the reviewers have some fairly advanced understanding of physics to be able to even comprehend any of it. It wasn’t the Nobel Prize, however, I wonder how many prizes the gentleman has won in physics?
It seems like I can’t even get the gentleman’s real name or find any of his credentials to be able to ascertain his capacity to review my work. As such, since he gave himself the name Bob-a-thon I shall call him Dr. Bob-a-thon, which, interestingly, I found to have a very disturbing definition in the urban dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=b.+o : “b.o.b.-a-thon: It may be that the gentleman had not done a full investigation before jumping to conclusions and choosing this pseudonym.
In point #2, the gentleman suggests that my Schwarzschild Proton paper has no merit as such, and supports his argument using three comments. I will address them one by one (for a complete rebuttal of his technical criticisms of the Schwarzschild proton, read http://theresonanceproject.org/sp_manifesto.html).
a) “His overall argument is circular”
This assertion is quite remarkable as The Schwarzschild Proton, while proposing a unification view, attempts to resolve a very significant circular argument found in the standard model. Almost a century ago, when it was determined that there seemed to be a highly charged nucleon at the center of atoms that contained most of their mass and that this entity was composed of particles that somehow must have been held together against their electrostatic charge (Coulomb repulsion), the scientific community at large adopted the concept of some mysterious strong force plucked out of thin air that happened to be in the correct proportion to produce a confinement necessary for proton to proton interaction. Later on it was found that the proton seemed to have internal structures called quarks and since those are confined in an even much smaller space, the color force was elaborated and made to be infinitely strong. Now the strong force at the proton scale was said to be only a remnant of the all-powerful color force of infinite nature mediated by gluons. Nowhere in the standard model is there given an argument for the source of energy that would be necessary to produce a force of infinite nature –that is, the strongest force in the Universe.
Ironically, this is a perfect example of circular thinking. One finds an error in his or her current physical model that doesn’t agree with experiment or observation, then proceeds to invent a new kind of force or even a new kind of matter (in the case of the dark matter/dark energy allegories, see below) then gives this new invention exactly the characteristics necessary to make the initial model work. Then the researcher asserts that the new quantity is confirmed, since it is predicted by the initial model which otherwise fails.
In order for the argument of the standard model to not be circular, a mechanism for the production of an infinite confining force would have had to be given, and this is exactly what The Schwarzschild Proton does. It does so by postulating a certain amount of coherent and polarized structure in the available vacuum fluctuations present at the quantum scale (known to produce foam-like structures in the spacetime manifold, according to the standard model) and contributing to high curvature near or at the horizon. This is not addressed or elaborated on in The Schwarzschild Proton paper, although it is better referenced in the final copy for publication which is not available on the internet yet. However, my earlier papers Collective Coherent Oscillation Plasma Modes In Surrounding Media of Black Holes and Vacuum Structure – Quantum Processes with Considerations of Spacetime Torque and Coriolis Forces and Spinors, Twistors, Quaternions, and the “Spacetime” Torus Topology treated this very issue and showed that soliton-like structures and acoustic plasma solutions found in the neighborhood of horizons demand a certain amount of coherent structure in the vacuum at the quantum level. Therefore, the Schwarzschild paper is not a stand-alone paper, but a continuation of investigation of a certain approach to the structure of spacetime which involves distortions due to torque and Coriolis effect which may produce discreteness at the quantum level resolving the division between the relativistic world and the quantum world. This approach has been successful in predicting many astrophysical phenomenons, including the existence of black holes prior to galactic formation (http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2009/bhbulge/). The following quote is one example from The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein’s Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.
“In this section we have shown that we can modify Einstein’s field equations and the Kerr-Newman solution in order to accommodate torque and the Coriolis forces, which we term the Haramein-Rauscher solution. Since Einstein’s field equations obey the Laplace-Poisson condition, the torquing of spacetime may be the result of the vacuum gradient density in the presence of matter-energy. Modification of the field equations makes it possible to include the torque terms and hence generate more realistic solutions. These solutions more comprehensively describe the dynamical rotational structures of galaxies, novae, supernovae, and other astrophysical structures which in this case are driven by a spacetime torque. Hence, with the inclusion of torque and Coriolis effects in Einstein’s field equations, the spacetime manifold correlates well with the observable mechanisms of black holes, galactic topology, supernova formation, stellar plasma dynamics and planetary science such as ring formation and the Coriolis structure of atmospheric dynamics. This may lead to a model where the driving torque and the dynamical Coriolis forces of the spacetime manifold topology are responsible for the observed early formation of mature spiral galaxies [18]. Further, our model is consistent with galactic structures, the super-massive black hole at their centers, as well as polar jets, accretion disks, spiral arms and galactic halo formations.”
[Reference 18. Robert G. Abraham et al., “The Gemini Deep Deep Survey.I. Introduction to the Survey,” Catalogs, and Composite Spectra, AJ. 127, 2455.]
The impetus for the Schwarzschild Proton paper was merely to show that when a proton is treated as a mini black hole, its interactive behavior actually predicts well (considering a first order approximation since a full tensor analysis would need to be included using the Kerr-Newman metric and eventually the Haramein-Rauscher solution) the gamma emission, the interaction time and the so-called “anomalous magnetic moment” of the proton – which now has been given a source through the polarized vacuum structure.
You can find Bob’s reply to Nassim here:
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/nassims-response-to-bobathon.html
All may not be as it seems…
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….
babel
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.
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.
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.
http://www.supernaturalresearch.com/2010/07/albert-einsteins-final-letter-to-velikovsky/
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.
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.
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.
Your use of “sacred textbooks” is a dysphemism and a dishonest tactic in debate.
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
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.
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 ?
-curious
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.
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
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.
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.
http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html
Hey guys….why Nassim Haramein win the Best Paper Award whith the Schwarzchild Proton?
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!
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.