Nassim Haramein. Debunked?

@glasstrees,

We don't have a member called "God" on this forum. At least he is not on the members list.

William

@William,

William;71686 wrote:

We don't have a member called "God" on this forum. At least he is not on the members list.

William

I was talking about the member in the link that i posted.

@glasstrees,

I dont know enough about the guy to make a reasoned response but i do feel ive been here before.We do have these strange legends and nature is full of paterns of life but putting them altogether to make story of everything sounds a step to far.Ide like to see what his contemporaries say about his theories first.

---------- Post added at 07:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 AM ----------

William;71686 wrote:

We don't have a member called "God" on this forum. At least he is not on the members list.

William

Its spelt with J...bill.:bigsmile:

@glasstrees,

What do you think personally? I am not a physics student at all but Nassim made a lot of sense to me. Being an absolute first grader when it comes to understanding physics, I watched the "approaching the event horison" prelude to his seminar and was rather amazed at the simplicity of his language and it made an enormous amount of sense; even to me, especially about the "invisible dot" in which he starts to talk about. I have never understood how something can appear out of nothing. No matter how small you go, that dot is going to be made up of other "dots". I would be interested in hearing what you think if you can possibly keep in on a first grade level, Ha.

William

@William,

William;71690 wrote:

What do you think personally? I am not a physics student at all but Nassim made a lot of sense to me. Being an absolute first grader when it comes to understanding physics, I watched the "approaching the event horison" prelude to his seminar and was rather amazed at the simplicity of his language and it made an enormous amount of sense; even to me, especially about the "invisible dot" in which he starts to talk about. I have never understood how something can appear out of nothing. No matter how small you go, that dot is going to be made up of other "dots". I would be interested in hearing what you think if you can possibly keep in on a first grade level, Ha.

William

He does the same things as lots of people trying to convince you they are right and make you feel stupid if you don't believe him.

He claims he came up with these ideas as a child. To make you think "wow I must be really stupid if i don't agree with him" also he gets the audience to laugh at other peoples theorys. It seems like he is just being an entertainer and convince people. He doesnt act like someone that is into genuine scientific research but trying to sell people his idea.

@glasstrees,

I'll provide some links to his stuff for review. There's always going to be opposition no matter what.

Grand Unified Field Theory, part 1
Grand Unified Field Theory, part 2
Grand Unified Field Theory, part 3

Here is his main videos:
Crossing the Event Horizon: Another Cycle Begins - p. 1 of 3
Crossing the Event Horizon: Another Cycle Begins - p. 2 of 3
Crossing the Event Horizon: Another Cycle Begins - p. 3 of 3

Take a look for yourself and make your own decisions on the validity. To each their own.

@Justin,

Thanks for putting them up.

I find it hard to make judgements as I don't know anything about the things he is making claims about. Seriously that swirling vortex thing on Jupiter might not even exist and I wouldnt know Very Happy

The only thing I can really make comments on is his style of explaining things. Making people laugh at old theories on one of his videos and it looking very show him sitting on a beach doing his talk? There the only things that make me wonder that I can make any kind of judgement about him on.

@glasstrees,

dwixi;72131 wrote:

Thanks for putting them up.

I find it hard to make judgements as I don't know anything about the things he is making claims about. Seriously that swirling vortex thing on Jupiter might not even exist and I wouldnt know

The only thing I can really make comments on is his style of explaining things. Making people laugh at old theories on one of his videos and it looking very show him sitting on a beach doing his talk? There the only things that make me wonder that I can make any kind of judgement about him on.

The only way to understand Haramein is to understand Walter Russell and the science of Russell. I was at a talk of his where he tied Russell into his own findings in science. He's actually a really nice guy with a neat personality. I commend his desire to seek out these answers and work through them like he does.

If we can understand energy and the energy of the universe and the sexed opposites and balance, it will be easier to understand what he's talking about. It's deep either way.

Nicola Tesla told Russell to bury his scientific knowledge because the world would not understand. What's interesting, is that science is just now coming to terms that Russell was correct.

If you'd like to understand more about Walter Russell, take a look at University of Science and Philosophy - P.O. Box 520, Waynesboro, VA 22980 - Home

@Justin,

Justin;72133 wrote:

The only way to understand Haramein is to understand Walter Russell and the science of Russell. I was at a talk of his where he tied Russell into his own findings in science. He's actually a really nice guy with a neat personality. I commend his desire to seek out these answers and work through them like he does.

If we can understand energy and the energy of the universe and the sexed opposites and balance, it will be easier to understand what he's talking about. It's deep either way.

Nicola Tesla told Russell to bury his scientific knowledge because the world would not understand. What's interesting, is that science is just now coming to terms that Russell was correct.

If you'd like to understand more about Walter Russell, take a look at University of Science and Philosophy - P.O. Box 520, Waynesboro, VA 22980 - Home

What did you think about that "debunked" discussion?

@glasstrees,

Has he had any work that has been peer reviewed by legitmate sources? If all these developments he is claiming to made are so important in relation to Einstein's field equations, Why is his work not published in the Physical Review or another equivalent journal?

@glasstrees,

dwixi;72134 wrote:

What did you think about that "debunked" discussion?

Sorry, I didn't care at all to read it.

@Justin,

I found nothing special or new here. He borrows the torus idea from many others who preceded him (not unusual for gurus) and then suggests that angular momentum is generated by the expansion and contraction of the torus. Problem solved!! Only thing left is to explain what is the impetus behind the expansion and contraction? Well, we will just have to wait for the next guru to solve that problem. Anyway, I thought the requisite ponytail adds a nice touch.

Basically, any scientific based theory is going to end up having the same problem. What was the initial impetus that started everything going?

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;72164 wrote:

Basically, any scientific based theory is going to end up having the same problem. What was the initial impetus that started everything going?

Rich

That is his entire point. Logically there is nothing "too small" just as there is nothing "too big". We just assumed there is a "starting point". The idea the something started from nothing is, to me at any rate, absolutely riidiculous. You have to understand, I have never taken a physics course in my life, but he sure made a lotta sense to me. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. IMO.

William

Come on Rich, the ponytail and the guru remark; that's not you. Tsk! Ha.

@richrf,

richrf;72164 wrote:

I found nothing special or new here. He borrows the torus idea from many others who preceded him (not unusual for gurus) and then suggests that angular momentum is generated by the expansion and contraction of the torus. Problem solved!! Only thing left is to explain what is the impetus behind the expansion and contraction? Well, we will just have to wait for the next guru to solve that problem. Anyway, I thought the requisite ponytail adds a nice touch.

Basically, any scientific based theory is going to end up having the same problem. What was the initial impetus that started everything going?

Rich

I think he is saying that the starting point is 0

Yeah the apparent starting point of the universe is zero. But that doesnt mean it has to be the beginning because You can infinity go into negative numbers and infinity into positive.

@William,

William;72187 wrote:

That is his entire point. Logically there is nothing "too small" just as there is nothing "too big". We just assumed there is a "starting point". The idea the something started from nothing is, to me at any rate, absolutely riidiculous. You have to understand, I have never taken a physics course in my life, but he sure made a lotta sense to me. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. IMO.

William

Come on Rich, the ponytail and the guru remark; that's not you. Tsk! Ha.

As the presentation attempts to be scientific, I think that he has done nothing more than present an image of the universe that has been present many times previously. I didn't find anything new there.

However, he did appear to be really excited about the fact that angular momentum was the result of a torus oscillating in two directions. Fine. So? What gets the torus oscillating in two directions? That is the question?

I do not think one can provide explanations for the nature of the universe using the limitations that are self-imposed by the scientific community. I think that in order to have a Theory of Everything, it must incorporate the concept of consciousness. At least, such a theory would account of experiences and events that are not associated with physical motion, such as sleep and feelings.

As for the uncalled for cracks, I do have a sarcastic side of me, that comes out sometimes. I apologize. However, I do find it amusing as the actors take on the roles. I do realize it is all a game.

Rich

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------

dwixi;72189 wrote:

I think he is saying that the starting point is 0

Yeah the apparent starting point of the universe is zero. But that doesnt mean it has to be the beginning because You can infinity go into negative numbers and infinity into positive.

This may be what he is saying. But any scientific approach is necessarily limited to physical observations and experiences. Thus, within this framework, anyone who tries to present a Theory of Everything will have to address:

1) How it all started?

2) How does it explain non-physical experiences.

Rich

@glasstrees,

He does get into consciousness. I think if you check out his seminar at Rogue Valley which is two clips four hours in length, you might find find his answer. It's all a bit too deep for met, yet, but I like what I can understand.

William

@richrf,

richrf;72200 wrote:

As the presentation attempts to be scientific, I think that he has done nothing more than present an image of the universe that has been present many times previously. I didn't find anything new there.

However, he did appear to be really excited about the fact that angular momentum was the result of a torus oscillating in two directions. Fine. So? What gets the torus oscillating in two directions? That is the question?

I do not think one can provide explanations for the nature of the universe using the limitations that are self-imposed by the scientific community. I think that in order to have a Theory of Everything, it must incorporate the concept of consciousness. At least, such a theory would account of experiences and events that are not associated with physical motion, such as sleep and feelings.

As for the uncalled for cracks, I do have a sarcastic side of me, that comes out sometimes. I apologize. However, I do find it amusing as the actors take on the roles. I do realize it is all a game.

Rich

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------

This may be what he is saying. But any scientific approach is necessarily limited to physical observations and experiences. Thus, within this framework, anyone who tries to present a Theory of Everything will have to address:

1) How it all started?

2) How does it explain non-physical experiences.

Rich

Oh right yeah. Everything in physics in in the scope of consciousness and its important to relate it back to that.

I think its good that people dig deep in this apparently physical existence though. Becuase its kind of a dubble backed up positive thing. Either we are a divine conciousness playing games with itself OR we are a unlimitedly huge universe making an ultimate amount of random events so its practicly the same as it having a direction or consciousness anyway just a little uglier.

So its a good thing either way. so i wouldnt worry about him not explaining it. What there is too worry is a limited universe or consciousness. But I really dont see how thats possible when you bring up the question Why something and not nothing.

@glasstrees,

I haven't studied or read Haramein's stuff to any certain extent but was able to meet him in person during the weekend at Swannanoa and watch him speak with enthusiasm about his projects and tied what his findings were with that of Walter Russell. For us he summarized how he became interested in all this stuff and when he attempted to explain it, people simply did not understand.

He also told us a funny story about a project he was working on and an invention he's created that destroyed the house he was renting. The next day, as our head was spinning around with information, he hosted a question and answer that took around 2 hours and he could have kept going. Everyone in the room simply raised their hand and asked questions and he went into great detail explaining it.

It doesn't really matter to me if someone tries to debunk his theories or findings because I was able to meet him in person and watch him glow with enthusiasm about the entire thing. The amazing thing is that it all coincides with Walter Russell's understanding of it and the works of Russell gave understanding to himself as well.

Understand that there are a many great thinkers and illuminated individuals within our society that see things different than others and then try to explain it to the best of their ability, which is very difficult due to the lack of understanding or desire to understand some our greatest 'unanswered questions'. The neat thing is, Walter Russell understood much of this and even though we have different understandings of it, I think the most important documentation given to science and humanity is that of Walter Russell. Seriously, Nassim is continuing Russell. May of these people are. It's just now being realized.

So all in all, I liked Nassim Haramein and thought he did a great job of presenting, explaining, and keeping the audience interested and involved. Kudo's to Nassim!

@glasstrees,

Thanks, Justin

What amazed me about the man is his "human" side that has an effervescense as he tries so very hard to communicate with his listener in simple unsophisticated language. His knowledge is astounding to me as to all the areas of knowledge he draws from. Yes, it does get a little complicated, but his delivery is as such you get a feeling of the elation he is going through. His levity and sense of humor is real and he is really having a good time and he is doing it all from his head. No notes, no script to keep him on track. A remarkable gentleman.
William

Philosophy Forum

Nassim Haramein. Debunked?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know