Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

Inflation was devised ([46]; see [47] for some history)
as a way to grow a finite-size region into an extremely
large one with nearly uniform properties, and if inflation
is realized in some region, it does this effectively: the
exponential expansion that inflates the volume also di-
lutes or stretches into near homogeneity any particles or
fields within the original region.

The post-inflationary properties are then primarily determined not by cosmic
initial conditions, but by the dynamics of inflation, which
are uniform across the region; although particular initial
conditions are required for such inflation to arise, once it
does, information about the initial conditions is largely
inflated away.

Born in an Infinite Universe: a Cosmological Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics



[edit on 16-8-2010 by beebs]

And you have to ask yourself this, in an infinity, can anything be finite?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have Nassim's DVD Crossing the Event Horizon: Rise to the Equation and enjoyed it tremendously.

I've been re-viewing this DVD the past few days and enjoying it all over again.

I have been reminded of Nassim's self-directed search for how the universe works and I am in awe of his persistence and dedication to finding the truth and exposing the disinformation in mainstream academia - the most glaring example being the asinine explanation for how the pyramids were built. The fact that the official story of how the pyramids were built has been allowed to remain in textbooks is indicative of how supposed credentials, alone, don't prove anything. To get those credentials, people often have to go along to get along.

I love listening to his account of his thought process from the time he was a child pursuing information on his own onward to expanding on the work of others to construct his theory.

I think that self-taught knowledge is the best knowledge.

I'm reading Babylon's Banksters - The Alchemy of Deep Physics, High Finance and Ancient Religion by Joseph P. Farrell.

I just read a quote that made me think of this thread. Farrell is quoting Brian Desborough in They Cast No Shadows: A Collection of Essays on the Illuminati, Revisionist History, and Suppressed Technologies:

Sacred geometry, which comprised the core teaching of any genuine Mystery School of antiquity, was incorporated into the design of buildings that enabled them to function as resonant cavities, which were attuned to the dynamic energies that pervade the cosmos. This is the same energy continuum that was harnessed two thousand years later by Nikola Tesla and other scientific pioneers, who elected to conduct their research beyond the stultifying confines of academia.

[edit on 8/18/2010 by Mary Rose]

I enjoyed reading this blog post about Nassim's work on the blog "The Fertile Unknown":

I had the pleasure of being in scientist-philosopher-mystic Nassim Haramein's session at the Institute of Noetic Sciences conference a while back. His was one of the most interesting presentations. A multi-dimensional pioneer, he is working on a unified field theory he calls the “Holofractographic Universe.” I deeply resonated with what he was saying . . . we create by feedback and change and that we are all beings of infinite creative potential . . . the vacuum is not empty - it is not nothing. It is actually highly organizing and always communicating - an "unknown" that is actually fertile with creative potential.

[edit on 8/27/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 8/27/2010 by Mary Rose]

Hi mary I know we haven't agreed on everything in the past but I thought this was a fascinating bit of scientific proof/discovery/research that could easily support Nassim's black hole theories...awesome vid..check it out..



-B.M

reply to post by B.Morrison


Thanks, B. Morrison!

This was a pleasant surprise, finding this video posted this morning. I loved the information about how the problems of a practical nature that need solving lead scientists on a path of exploration in search of solutions and how progress is made over time - it was really interesting to observe in such clarity how scientists do their work. An excellent video!

Haramein's work remains a beautiful source of inspiration for me - it is something that is positive to counterbalance the mostly negative things that are going on in the world right now.

If people relentlessly searched for the truth using their own reasoning and intuition the way he does instead of defending their precious egos and the status quo we'd be a lot better off.

I have found a website, Arise in Consciousness, that has a very interesting and complete synopsis of Haramein's work. It was written for a Haramein seminar in Reston, VA in 2009.

It is interesting that a term "God Force" is used:

Physicist Nassim Haramein has discovered the secrets of the universe! His ground-breaking unified field theory which reconciles Einstein’s Field Equations with Quantum Mechanics is no less than the answer to the great spiritual questions of mankind and a scientific explanation of the God Force.

I've just discovered a video of an interview of Nassim that I had not seen before. In it I hear him saying that we are in communication with the energy of the universe through a feedback process which can result in synchronicity:

I like this video showing Nassim talking about infinity within a finite structure:

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Here's Bob-a-thon:

The paper begins with the suggestion that a real proton may be considered to be such an entity. To see if this is workable, let's compare his model with what we already know about protons.
Mass . . .

Here's Nassim:

. . . assuming that physicists could fill in the blanks and would already know about the issues related to the vacuum density and the cosmological constant, among others. . .

I've just noticed a whole load of things written about me on page 25 of this thread, including quotes, and examples of things presented as if everything I've said has been neatly dismissed by Haramein :-)

This is slightly amusing and slightly unsettling.

I'm guessing this thread may be a bit dead, so I'll just say that I replied to Haramein's response some time ago in this post.

In my blog, I very carefully exposed and explained sound scientific falsehoods in Haramein's work, one after another after another... and he responded with the rhetoric of a politician, peppered with misused scientific buzzwords and garbled concepts and irrelevant links, made to appear as if it's scientifically meaningful.

And as might be guessed, many of his followers (who don't understand anything of the science of his theories) are satisfied and happy to regurgitate it as if he's actually dealt with the points I raised.

He hasn't. At all. It's a shame I wasn't here to respond at the time... I will gladly do now if anyone finds any of it convincing.

Or if any of his followers feel that I'm being unfair about them and that they do understand his science and want to explain it to me, or just put me in my place, that would be fun too.

Originally posted by Bobathon
I'm guessing this thread may be a bit dead, so I'll just say that I replied to Haramein's response some time ago in this post.

If you don't mind me quoting you out of context, you said:

Haramein's physics.....looks really cool

Yes, and how can boring scientists compete with that? At least I've been told my science isn't interesting (I think):

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If you are unwilling to do the basic research to see if what I say is true, it doesn't demonstrate what I said is false, it only demonstrates that you aren't interested in knowing the truth.

...I'm not interested enough in your science to go read up on it and see whether it sounds right to me. I have other research I'd rather spend my time on.

Part of the Haramein mindset is that mainstream scientists have been brainwashed by their professors, are forced to accept paradigms because they can't get funding if they "think outside the box", and so on, you probably know the spiel better than I do. So to be pro-Haramein is to be anti-scientific establishment.

And as might be guessed, many of his followers (who don't understand anything of the science of his theories) are satisfied and happy to regurgitate it as if he's actually dealt with the points I raised.

It was kind of hard to defend yourself when you weren't here.

Even if you're right, how can our boring old science compete with the coolness factor of Haramein's "I'm right and the whole world is wrong, and all scientists are brainwashed" spiel? It seems to me like people are enamored with that idea and don't take the time to understand the real science and evidence behind Nassim's arguments versus the mainstream science arguments. But if Nassim's supporters prove me wrong by debating the real scientific questions with you, I'll be impressed.

Originally posted by Bobathon
. . . he responded . . .

Is the response in the Comments?

If it is, what is the username?

If it isn’t, please link to the response.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Is the response in the Comments?
If it isn’t, please link to the response.

Hi Mary Rose, Bobathon did provide a link to his site, and when you click that there's a link to Haramein's response where "part of his website" is underlined, when you click that link, it takes you here:

theresonanceproject.org...

Then you have to scroll down to see Haramein's link to the response. It takes a little bit of link hopping.

Originally posted by Bobathon
I've just noticed a whole load of things written about me on page 25 of this thread, including quotes, and examples of things presented as if everything I've said has been neatly dismissed by Haramein :-)

This is slightly amusing and slightly unsettling.

I'm guessing this thread may be a bit dead, so I'll just say that I replied to Haramein's response some time ago in this post.

In my blog, I very carefully exposed and explained sound scientific falsehoods in Haramein's work, one after another after another... and he responded with the rhetoric of a politician, peppered with misused scientific buzzwords and garbled concepts and irrelevant links, made to appear as if it's scientifically meaningful.

Let's clarify.

Your blog post linked above was written subsequent to Nassim Haramein's "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto" and "Letter to Dr. Bob-a-thon" and the reference you make: "and he responded with the rhetoric of a politician . . . " is not to your post linked above, but is a reference to "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto" and/or the "Letter to Dr. Bob-a-thon," and not to anything new.

Is that correct?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Bobathon
. . . he responded . . .

Is the response in the Comments?

If it is, what is the username?

If it isn’t, please link to the response.

Hi Mary Rose. I was referring to the very responses that you were quoting, that's why I didn't give a link. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Even if you're right, how can our boring old science compete with the coolness factor of Haramein's "I'm right and the whole world is wrong, and all scientists are brainwashed" spiel? It seems to me like people are enamored with that idea and don't take the time to understand the real science and evidence behind Nassim's arguments versus the mainstream science arguments. But if Nassim's supporters prove me wrong by debating the real scientific questions with you, I'll be impressed.

I'll be impressed too.

The problem is, if someone is faced with a whole load of people who look like they're talking science, how are they to tell which ones who are genuinely reporting from a depth of scientific understanding and inquiry, and which ones who just know how to look like they're talking science?

I think you're hinting at a really useful sign. If the guy is saying "I'm right and the whole world is wrong, and all scientists are brainwashed," which Haramein regularly does, surely there's a pretty good chance he's a blagger. That attitude is only necessary when your ideas conflict with centuries of actual measurements and the whole of science dismisses your work as garbage.

Scientists don't work like that. They build on each other's work, they credit each other with intelligence and insight, they co-operate, and they should never, and I mean never, discourage students or the interested public from studying things in depth. Of course no scientist is perfect, but if someone falls as far short of these ideals as Haramein does, there's something very, very wrong.

Of course there are very sound scientific reasons for dismissing Haramein's ideas as nonsense, and I've presented those many times, but I do think there are plenty of fairly common sense reasons too.

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Here's Bob-a-thon:

The paper begins with the suggestion that a real proton may be considered to be such an entity. To see if this is workable, let's compare his model with what we already know about protons.
Mass . . .

Here's Nassim:

. . . assuming that physicists could fill in the blanks and would already know about the issues related to the vacuum density and the cosmological constant, among others. . .

I've just noticed a whole load of things written about me on page 25 of this thread, including quotes, and examples of things presented as if everything I've said has been neatly dismissed by Haramein :-)

This is slightly amusing and slightly unsettling.

I'm guessing this thread may be a bit dead, so I'll just say that I replied to Haramein's response some time ago in this post.

So, what you've done is join ATS recently and posted on this thread that you continued the debate with Mr. Haramein that is chronicled on this thread, and that he responded like a politician to your very scientific analysis?

Mary, you posted a whole series of quotes from me and responses from Haramein.

The quotes you presented from me are from a blog where I presented a whole load of sound scientific reasons for Haramein's ideas being false. The quotes you presented from Haramein are from a couple of documents that do not actually answer a single one of the criticisms of his work.

As I've said many times, including on the post linked to above, if you can find any single point in Haramein's response that convinces you that any of my criticisms of his physics are unfounded – then I'd really love to know what it is, and why you find it convincing.

To me, it seems to be all rhetoric, misuse of scientific terms and concepts, and irrelevant links, and that seems to be enough to satisfy his fans. But if you think I'm being unfair, if you think he's actually made some points with any scientific content relevant to defending his theory against criticism, let's take a look at them. That's all.

reply to post by Bobathon


Your material was posted on this thread as criticism of Haramein's science. Because this material was also posted on Haramein's website, Haramein's debate with you there is posted on this thread in defense to the criticism.

If you are interested in rebutting Haramein's response to your material, I would suggest you choose one aspect of it to focus on and post it here to open your debate with ATS members.

Otherwise, members who are interested can read from your linked blog post and go from there.

reply to post by Mary Rose
I'm not interested in rebutting Haramein's defence to my criticisms because, as I said, there isn't any content to it. I'm interested in finding out what people such as yourself, who quote from it if it answers my criticisms, think he's said. So far as I can see, he says nothing at all that counteract any of the criticisms I made of his science, of every inch of his Schwarzschild Proton paper, and of his complete incompetence as a scientist.

I can't refute what other people find convincing about it, because I haven't a clue what it is they find convincing – all I see is quotes from it thrown around by people who are clearly satisfied that it looks to them as if he's given me a kicking but don't seem to care what any of it means. It's all a bit superficial really.

I wanted to give anyone who was interested the opportunity to discuss any of the science now that I'm on here. If not, that's fair enough. No need to start a new thread. There's also a thread here about his recent "peer-reviewed" paper. Before I even joined the debate, the contributors were already broadly in agreement that the publication was a sham. But it's interesting nonetheless.