Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

I have Nassim's DVD Crossing the Event Horizon: Rise to the Equation and enjoyed it tremendously. I was reading David Icke's new book Human Race Get off Your Knees this morning, and thinking about the spiritual transformation that David talks about in an early chapter of this book, I remembered that Nassim mentions in his talks that someone taught him how to meditate and that he has had experiences with meditation that have influenced his work. That made me go online to see whether he is sharing anything about meditation these days.

I see that this Memorial Day weekend he is in Rhinebeck, NY for "The Resonance Project Delegate Program Conference." The word "meditation" appears here:

Meditation techniques based on this knowledge will also be offered as an invaluable tool to aid in further integration, as you learn how to more effectively tap into the vacuum energy and the curvature of space and time and connect to your own personal singularity.

I hope a DVD recorded at this conference will be released!

I attended the delegate program in california last year. I had a great time. There were over 300 people there. It was very uplifting to be with all those beautiful people all intending for a more harmonious world.

If you get a chance, you should go. You can probably get in if you ask real nicely.

Good luck

Originally posted by wylee
I attended the delegate program in california last year.

Do you know whether it was recorded?

Originally posted by wylee
You can probably get in if you ask real nicely.

Please explain what you mean by this. Aren't the conferences open to the general public?

If you posted this thread in metaphysics I'd probably let it slide but since you posted it in science and technology, then like anything claiming to be science, it must stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?

The reason I want to 'debunk' him is because he's wrong. I teach physics and maths to students, and I think it's important to let them know when something is wrong. It's important to be able to tell truth from falsehood - if we don't, then we lose sight of truth altogether. I don't like it when someone pretends to have insights into the laws of physics that all the scientists of the world are supposedly too dumb to have realised, but in fact has nothing but charisma and a silvery tongue.

Now if you just want to listen to him because he can tell an entertaining, inspiring, but rather silly story, full of stuff he's made up, then I wouldn't argue with you for doing that at all.

I like silly, entertaining stories as much as the next person, that's why I'm a fan of science fiction. I also am a fan of science fact.

I can tell which is which, but I fear that some of the followers of Nassim Haramein can't. For some clues on how to tell one from the other, read the link I posted.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . it must stand up to scientific scrutiny.

I personally do not trust mainstream scientific scrutiny.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I personally do not trust mainstream scientific scrutiny.

You may have reasons for that, I don't know.

It would be one thing if a guy who understood science came up with a new theory that explained something better.

But someone who by his own admission is weak in math can't even understand existing science well enough to know if his proposed alternate theory is better than mainstream science or not.

The other question is, if you don't trust mainstream science, how do you determine whose theory outside the mainstream is right? Let's say 10 guys come up with theories that disagree with the mainstream. But they don't agree with each other. Who's is right? Are any of them right?

Well, one way to find out is to make observations based on the predictions in each theory. If the observations match the predictions, then it's probably right. But oops, that's mainstream science.

You can do mainstream science experiments in your back yard. So you don't believe yourself? What? Have you done any mainstream science experiments yourself that you have proven false? Mr. Wizard, Bill Nye and others have presented simple mainstream science experiments you can do yourself.

That's the beauty of science, we don't take anyone's word for it. We have to be able to repeat experiments or observations of others for us to believe them. It's not a matter of who to trust or who to believe, if you doubt it you can test it yourself. You can't build your own gravity probe but you can test a lot of mainstream science yourself.

Nassim's work has recently been recognized by his peers:

After some 20 years of tireless dedication to his in depth research on unification, Nassim Haramein’s most recent scientific paper, “The Schwarzschild Proton,” received an award at the University of Liège, Belgium during the 9th International Conference CASYS'09 (Computing Anticipatory Systems).

Chosen by a panel of 11 peer reviewers, Haramein's paper won the prestigious "Best Paper Award" in the field of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation.” This significant paper marks a new paradigm in the world of quantum theory, as it describes the nuclei of an atom as a mini black hole, where protons are attracted to each other by gravitation rather than some mysterious undefined “strong force.” This radical new view of the quantum world produces a unification of the forces and appropriately predicts measured values for the nucleon of atoms.

Here's the link: www.theresonanceproject.org...

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Nassim's work has recently been recognized by his peers:

After some 20 years of tireless dedication to his in depth research on unification, Nassim Haramein’s most recent scientific paper, “The Schwarzschild Proton,” received an award at the University of Liège, Belgium during the 9th International Conference CASYS'09 (Computing Anticipatory Systems).

Chosen by a panel of 11 peer reviewers, Haramein's paper won the prestigious "Best Paper Award" in the field of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation.” This significant paper marks a new paradigm in the world of quantum theory, as it describes the nuclei of an atom as a mini black hole, where protons are attracted to each other by gravitation rather than some mysterious undefined “strong force.” This radical new view of the quantum world produces a unification of the forces and appropriately predicts measured values for the nucleon of atoms.

Here's the link: www.theresonanceproject.org...

If you had read the link I posted earlier you'd realize what a scam that claim is. There is no evidence it was subjected to "peer review" as that term is commonly understood in the scientific community. Rather, some other people who attended the conference with him, presumably called "peers" on the basis of being fellow attendees of the same conference which was on COMPUTING SYSTEMS!

I've been to a computing systems conference before and those attendees know computing systems but what in the world qualifies them regarding papers on physics? Nothing.

To have any meaning a peer review of his paper would have to be conducted by peers who know the subject matter, not peers who know computer systems attending a computer systems conference. By the way, his paper was the best in the category of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation.” Do you want to take a guess how many other papers were submitted in that category?

There were 9 other categories NOT dealing with physics so if the categories represent the attendees, 90% of them were in fields other than physics:

www2.ulg.ac.be...

SYMPOSIUM 1: ANTICIPATION, INCURSION, HYPERINCURSION, SYNCHRONIZATION, ADVANCED-DELAYED AND PREDICTIVE MODELS

- STRONG and WEAK anticipation, Incursive and Hyperincursive Systems, Systems with retardation and anticipation, Differential difference equation systems, Anticipatory synchronization, Self-referential Systems, Cybernetics, feedback, feedforward, General systems, Predicting and Forecasting systems, Holistic Systems and Reductionism, Epistemology, Philosophy of Science, …

Special Session on Anticipation from a Transcendental Perspective, Organised by Gertrudis Van de Vijver (Belgium)



SYMPOSIUM 2: MATHEMATICAL MODELLING, CHAOS THEORY, DYNAMIC, LOGIC, STOCHASTIC AND STATISTIC SYSTEMS

- Modelling, Simulation, Control and Optimisation of systems, Differential equation systems, Discrete equation systems, Functional Differential equations, Delayed, Advanced, Neutral, and Mixed equations, Dynamical systems, Chaos Theory, Fractal maps, Category Theory, Catastrophe Theory, …

SYMPOSIUM 3: PHYSICAL SYSTEMS, CLASSICAL PHYSICS, QUANTUM MECHANICS, RELATIVITY, FIELD THEORY, GRAVITATION

- New trends in theoretical physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity and Gravitation, Optics, Electromagnetism, Quantum Field Theory, Lienard-Wiechert potentials, Advanced-retarded waves, E.P.R. Non-locality, Aharanov-Bohm potential, Berry's phase, Faster than light, Tachyons, Black hole, Big-Bang, Soliton, Instanton, Dilaton, Euclidean and Lorentzian metrics, …

SYMPOSIUM 4: COMPUTING SYSTEMS, DISCRETE MODELS, ALGORITHM, SIMULATION, INFORMATION SYSTEMS, NETWORKS

- Automata, Networks (web), Recursive Systems, Software and Hardware, Anticipatory Data Staging, User modeling, agent-based systems, multi-agent systems, evolutionary and adaptive computation, Algorithms for simulation, implicit algorithms, predictor-corrector algorithms, Crisp Computing, Logical systems, Quantum computing, Turing Machine, Formal Language, Music, Image …

SYMPOSIUM 5: SOFT COMPUTING, COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, FUZZY SYSTEMS, NEURAL NETWORKS, LEARNING

- STRONG and WEAK Computing Anticipatory System, Fuzzy logic, Genetic Algorithms, Neural Networks, Computational intelligence, STRONG and WEAK Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Emotions, Natural Language versus Formal Language, Brain versus Turing Machine, Zombies, STRONG and WEAK Consciousness, STRONG and WEAK Artificial Life, Intelligent Agents and Multi-agent, Intelligent conscious robots, …

Focus Session on Artificial Formal Language and Natural Language, Organised by Daniel M. Dubois (Belgium) and Pere Julià (Spain)


SYMPOSIUM 6: COGNITIVE SYSTEMS, MIND, PSYCHOLOGY, INTENTION, CONSCIOUSNESS

- Model of anticipatory and predictive capabilities, Internal models for predictive control, Neuronal brain, Neuro-psychoanalysis, Psychology, Intention, Free will, Mind and Consciousness, Conscience, Unconscious, Awareness, Unconscious anticipation, Intuitive conscious anticipation, Emotional anticipation, …

Special Session on Science of Consciousness, Organised by Gilles Nibart (France) and Jerry Chandler (USA)

SYMPOSIUM 7: BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS, GENETICS, EVOLUTION, ECOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL MODELS

- What is life, model of development, DNA, theories of evolution, Darwinism, adaptation, anticipatory behaviour, emergence, ecological systems, biological control, environmental transformations, …

FOCUS TOPICS ON DARWIN 2009

SYMPOSIUM 8: MANAGEMENT, ECONOMICAL SYSTEMS, SOCIAL MODELS, MULTI-AGENTS, DECISION SUPPORT, RISK MANAGEMENT

- Social systems, Risk management, Decision-making, Anticipatory Planning and Scheduling, Discrete event dynamic systems, Information Systems, Operation research, Statistics, Probability theory, Multi-criteria analysis, Adaptive and Rational Expectations, Rational Anticipation, Econophysics, Intuitive Decision Making, …

SYMPOSIUM 9: ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS, MODELLING, OPTIMIZATION, SIMULATION, CONTROL

- Model-based Predictive Control, Generalized Predictive Control, Model Predictive Heuristic Control, Dynamic Matrix Control, Internal Model Control, Fuzzy Model Predictive Control, Learning Model Predictive Control, Adaptive Model Predictive Control, Smith's Predictor Control, Robotics, Multi-agents, manufacturing systems, Aesthetics and Architecture, …

SYMPOSIUM 10: 7th BCSCMsG International Symposium on Grammatical Cosmos II, dedicated to the Quantum Hologram - Focus Session - Intelligence, Consciousness & How The Laws of Physics Become the Laws of Life

So I would argue that to have a physics paper reviewed by peers requires physicists. These so called "peers" really aren't peers in the "peer review" sense, only peers in the "fellow conference attendee" sense.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If you had read the link I posted earlier you'd realize what a scam that claim is. There is no evidence it was subjected to "peer review" as that term is commonly understood in the scientific community.

I see what you're saying now.

I'm not a scientist. And I don't know who the "peers" were.

I simply find his work very interesting and my intuition tells me that he is a scientist with vision.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I simply find his work very interesting and my intuition tells me that he is a scientist with vision.

I think a lot of his followers rely on intuition:

azureworld.blogspot.com...

Nassim (and indeed the other participants in the video) is someone who is way too ready and willing to make outrageous claims, and to jump on anything that looks kind-of right without stopping to question it. He drags into his explanations as many established scientific concepts as possible to make what he says sound convincing, however irrelevant they may be, and throws in some seriously wacky ones for good measure.

I think this example goes some way to explain why so many people love the 'intuitively right' feel of Nassim's ideas. It feels intuitively right to some people because his approach is simply to spot what seems to be a connection or a pattern, and link it up to the first thing that it reminds him of. He's also a master story-teller. Physics could really do with more people who can communicate like him (but who understand what they're talking about, are a bit less self-obsessed and self-promoting, and will tell the truth). Nassim Haramein is not an investigator, rigorously testing his ideas on the touchstone of reality. He is not – as he claims – a physicist. He's a fraud.

The appeal of his ideas – making the complexities of the universe graspable and simple to understand – is a false appeal. The Universe far more beautiful and complex than this, and far more of a slippery customer. Getting even a glimpse of how it works has taken the collaborative effort of massive numbers of rigorous, dedicated researchers over the ages. It's an affront to Nature to claim that it can be grasped by whatever models and connections happen to come into one guy's head, untested and unquestioned, however intuitive and exciting and real it may all have seemed to him at the time.

It's a attractive idea. Who wants 'the scientists' to have all the answers? The idea that this one guy-next-door character might have these lovely little insights into physics that have all escaped the entire scientific community, that would be one in the eye for the institutions, wouldn't it. You can see the appeal. It'd be a great thing to be a part of. If he wasn't simply making it all up.

"We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."
-Carl Sagan, Cosmos television series, quoted from The Carl Sagan Electronic Monument

It's good to seek the truth, but we need more than intuition to separate fact from fantasy, in the world of science.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . we need more than intuition to separate fact from fantasy, in the world of science.

I believe Haramein is relying on more than intuition in his work.

It is to be expected that he will be strongly criticized; he's a trailblazer.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . we need more than intuition to separate fact from fantasy, in the world of science.

I believe Haramein is relying on more than intuition in his work.

It is to be expected that he will be strongly criticized; he's a trailblazer.

azureworld.blogspot.com...

he is not trained in the scientific method, or in mathematics, and openly admits both these facts. he actually asked me for help with mathematics as its not his strong point.

Well he admits he's not good at math so he asks for other people's help, yet good math is essential to understanding physics. So if he hasn't got math, and he hasn't got experimental results, what else has he got besides intuition?

Since Haramein isn't a scientist, he's not even taken seriously enough by scientists to criticize. So actually you don't see strong criticism of him from the scientific community. It's just that his theories are taken as seriously as theories that the moon is made of green cheese. Scientists don't have the time or the inclination to refute such theories.

Einstein was a trailblazer, and he did endure some criticism before proof of his theory was found in 1919. But he did have papers published in peer-reviewed journals, unlike Haramein.

How is it that there is absolutely no support from any part of the scientific community for any of Nassim's ideas, talks, or research? None of his papers have been published in any scientific journal – certainly not one subject to proper peer review. Scientists seem to either treat him as a crank or dismiss him altogether.

There are hundreds of thousands of scientists in the universities of the world, and their ways of thinking are as various as any other group of hundreds of thousands of human beings - if not more so. There'll always be plenty of scientists hungry for any radical idea, especially in topics as hot as grand unified theories, provided it's got some substance.

There may well be unanimous skepticism about things which have utterly no scientific basis, such as someone claiming to have a theory that the moon is made of green cheese. But this is not because of any inability to think outside of the box.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


From Nassim's website:

Mr. Haramein has been giving lectures and seminars on his unification theory for over 10 years. His lectures are multimedia presentations that lead his audiences through the validity of his theories with observational and theoretical data. He has presented at such institutions as the Department of Physics at Georgia Tech, the Department of Physics at University of Nebraska at Omaha . . . and his unification model has now been delivered to the American Physical Society.

Why would two departments of physics give him the time of day if he's a fraud?

He's a self-taught visionary, in my opinion. I like the fact that he's unorthodox. I don't care whether he's good in math or not. He's an original thinker.

reply to post by Mary Rose


They won't let him teach there and he doesn't claim to have taught there. What did he present?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


No claim has been made that he taught there!!

I don't care what he presented there.

You win!!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
No claim has been made that he taught there!!

I don't care what he presented there.

You win!!

Then why do I feel like I lost? My only intent is to search for the truth and to inspire those around me to search for the truth. I feel like I failed if people don't realize that's not what they're getting from Haramein:

Re: Nassim Haramein - and his Unified theory

Anybody can rent a hall on most college campuses and sell tickets to the general public. Giving a lecture at a University means nothing.

I once worked very closely with someone who turned out to be a complete crackpot and I witnessed from the inside how they can make everything they do look legitimate to the untrained outsider. It's all smoke and mirrors for the sole purpose of making money.

Haramein's tactics in presenting his credentials are obviously designed to impress those who aren't experienced enough with science to know what real credentials look like. So I've tried to shed some light on how what he presents as credentials may at first glance look impressive to a layperson, when in fact they are misleading such as giving people the impression his work has been peer reviewed when in fact it has not been peer reviewed in the commonly accepted usage of that term in the field of science.

But what the heck. Who cares if something is true or not, just as long as it's fun to believe it.

Yeah, that's it. Lets' just make our standard of acceptability be this: "Is it fun to believe this thing?" If the answer is "yes", then we'll believe it, whether it's really true or not. Especially if the imaginary thing we want to believe in is so much more simplistic than real science. After all, we don't have the education to understand real science, and that also makes fake science much more appealing to believe in.

One additional note. I did watch the video. A lot of the things he says are TRUE. But they are also known to and accepted by mainstream science. So to find one or two or seven dozen things he says that are true doesn't make any of his other nonsense true as well. That's like me saying: "My theory predicts that rain is wet and that Martians are about to invade Earth." Since rain is, indeed, wet, does that prove that Martians are about to invade Earth? Do you see the fault in that line of reasoning?

That's exactly the same tactic used in the movie "What the bleep do we know", mix science with quackery and then innocent bystanders not able to tell which is which are actually led further from the truth, instead of closer to it.

www.doomers.us...

So if you are going to pick and choose which crackpots to believe, you MUST have some criteria with which to judge one crackpot vs another crackpot.

What is your criteria?

I suggest that your criteria might well be what I have mentioned before:

1. Is this crackpot fun to believe?
2. Is this crackpot's explanation easier to understand than real science?
3. Do I need any real education to understand what this crackpot says, or is it something any moron can grasp?

So what you are suggesting is that if you ever need delicate brain surgery you would sooner trust a neurosurgeon who's understanding of the brain is more fun than real, more simplistic than accurate, and basic enough that anyone off the street could grasp it.

Does that really sound like a good set of standards for truth?

I prefer my surgery to be done by a doctor with a medical license, not by somebody who thinks they know more than real medical doctors. Would you actually let someone perform surgery on you who didn't have a medical license just because your intuition told you that he was better than surgeons with a real medical license?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?

I see this blogger Bob doesn't tell the world anything about himself in his complete profile other than he's from the UK. He has written profusely about Haramein I can see.

Looking for more information about the Delegate Program, I pulled up this blog and see Bob is in the Comments section saying that Haramein promotes himself as a leading research scientist and he shouldn't do that.

I think Haramein is most definitely a leading research scientist. I LOVE the fact that he's not connected to a university. That frees him from pressure to protect the status quo.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think Haramein is most definitely a leading research scientist. I LOVE the fact that he's not connected to a university. That frees him from pressure to protect the status quo.

Wow you just gave me a great idea! I wrote a paper about a flying spaghetti monster but I've been concerned I may have a hard time getting the stuffy old PhD's at the university to pass peer review on my paper so I can publish it in a respected journal.

Maybe I should just give up on having my work reviewed by other experts in the field and publish it myself without the constraints of that overbearing university and stifling peer-review process?

And to get more interest I'll change the title from "anecdotal observations confirming existence of "Flying spaghetti monster"" to "Fractal interpolations in multiple dimensions yields new insights into previously unseen aspects of the universe".

As for Bob, while it does take credentials do do a peer review, I'm not sure it takes credentials to spot the signs that someone is deceiving us about their credentials. For that you don't need any math, and just a few investigative skills to confirm that Haramein's award wasn't given by peers in physics.

I also have a personal friend who's got a lot in common with Haramein. Extremely intelligent, charismatic, and knows enough science to mix that in with some crazy ideas and it sounds like he knows what he's talking about to an untrained listener. He also has tried to get his papers peer reviewed and published like I suspect Haramein has.

Einstein's papers on relativity were pretty radical at the time, yet he managed to get them peer-reviewed.

www.cosmosmagazine.com...

The anti-relativity movement got underway as soon as Einstein's first paper on special relativity was published, in 1905. Some scientists disputed its assertion that the old Newtonian concepts of absolute space and time — which had never been scientifically established — were superfluous.

Some scientists didn't agree with him. So having radical new ideas is not automatically precluded by the peer review process or a university connection.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The sarcasm of your post is palpable. The post is of no interest to me as a result.

reply to post by Mary Rose

That's excellent!

Now you know exactly how scientists see Haramein's work. It looks like a sarcastic joke to them so they have no interest as a result, not even enough to try to make a rebuttal. That was kind of my point.