Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

Originally posted by Mary Rose

People who are interested in Haramein's theory are interested in theoretical physics, not physics taught to students in institutions from textbooks.

That's the dumbest, unjustifiable piece of bull# I've heard you say. And I've heard you say a lot. You've already made clear that you don't know what theoretical physics is, and you're still arrogant and bigoted enough to keep on attacking and attempting to convince other people what you think? And not take in a single thing that anyone's tried to explain to you?

Does everyone agree that the Standard Model is hypothetical?

Listen.

The Standard Model works. It reflects how nature operates physically, to an astonishing degree of accuracy and breadth. Mathematically and philosophically, the whole thing is built from a consistent and beautiful set of gauge theories. Experimentally, it's been used to make millions of predictions, to build outrageous machines and predict what they'll do, to make predictions about things as wild as supernovae and the infancy of the universe, to predict the existence of particles that have turned up right on cue, and virtually nothing has been discovered in decades of using it that it hasn't either predicted or accounted for perfectly, and it has been used to make the most accurately verified predictions in the history of the world. All these accelerators and cosmic ray observatories are built all over the world to try to find flaws in it, don't you get it? Physics wants to transcend it, but the bloody model is too good. It's been tested and tested and tested.

THE first and most important criterion for ANY new theory that will take us beyond the Standard Model is that it MUST account for every single success of the Standard Model. Every single one.

Compare....

Haramein's model is inconsistent, his logic is circular, his descriptions are incoherent rambles, it's invented from things that are utterly unconnected, it makes NO predictions that can be tested, it gives values for the mass of the proton and the force between protons that are a several million billion billion billion billion times bigger than what's observed, and it comes in a package with ridiculous and utterly FALSE claims and a load of IRRELEVANT links (which you insist on just throwing at people, despite not knowing what they mean, as if that's a valid form of argument). On top of that, the guy fills his presentations with palpably false statements and misunderstandings of every bit of physics that he tries to mention.

What part of that would attract any sane person that has even the tiniest interest in theoretical physics?

There are some perfectly sensible but misinformed people who are drawn to his ideas, and I can understand that. I have a lot of sympathy for them, and that's why I wrote the articles that I wrote.

But when you keep arguing for it despite understanding nothing of it, and to keep closing your ears to the fatal flaws in everything he says, and not even do the tiniest bit of your own investigation, and then to keep on claiming that it appeals to those interested in theoretical physics, Miss Mary, that is just dumb as @£%$.

I think that's largely been the problem on this God-forsaken thread.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

He says the latest version of his paper isn't available online.

It is now – you can get it here.

Highly recommended, of course. Haha.

There are no significant changes. The main difference is a load of artificially added references, so that it's not just his own previous scribbles and a few high school textbooks, which was the (more honest) set of references in the original.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I think they are wasting their time reading the charlatan's publications, instead of trying to learn physics in their spare time, if such is their interest.

People who are interested in Haramein's theory are interested in theoretical physics, not physics taught to students in institutions from textbooks.

Whoosh. So students are NOT taught theoretical physics.

I see now. I suggest you extend that assertion to say medicine, and next time instead of seeing a physician go consult a Taro card reader or a shaman.

Textbooks are good as a reference but not as a bible.

Textbooks, on the contrary, are NOT good source of reference but are an essential learning tool. You would have known that if you used at least some of them.

I have to wonder whether the vitriol directed at Haramein, personally - on the pretext of science - has anything to do with his being of Iranian descent.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have to wonder whether the vitriol directed at Haramein, personally - on the pretext of science - has anything to do with his being of Iranian descent.

Nope. There's no excuse for this kind of insinuation.

There's no vitriol directed at him personally. He's been exposed as a fraud. Why? Because he's a fraud.

The reason is Really Very Very Simple.

Originally posted by Bobathon
Nope.

How do you know?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have to wonder whether the vitriol directed at Haramein, personally - on the pretext of science - has anything to do with his being of Iranian descent.

You're being ridiculous here Mary.

A friend of mine is from Iran though I don't think he's welcome back because he didn't agree with the way things are being run there. I don't like Ahmadinejad but not because he's Iranian, but because he's a jerk. There are plenty of fine people in and from Iran that don't like him either.

But this topic has nothing to do with nationality and I'm surprised you'd even bring up the question. I suspect you just want to change the subject away from the science since you're unable to defend the science of Haramein.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have to wonder whether the vitriol directed at Haramein, personally - on the pretext of science - has anything to do with his being of Iranian descent.

With no arguments remaining, you pull out the race card. How pathetic.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Of course, people don't admit to such things.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Other "such things" are disliking a person for the way he looks, or talks, or his demeanor, or his gumption, if the person making the judgment is lacking in gumption.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I see on Nassim's website that he has posted responses to a critic going by the name of "Bob-a-thon."

From "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto":

As mentioned in the few first paragraphs of the general reply to the gentleman, I would like to take a moment to thank my critics for giving me the opportunity to reply in a constructive, professional way to questions about my work. To elucidate our approach, we offer a response to one of the more vocal, yet suspiciously anonymous critics, "Bob-a-thon". In this anonymity, there is no knowledge of our critic's accreditations and publications and as such, it is easy for him to portray himself as the arbiter of truth and the authority representing true science. Furthermore, the Bob-a-thon in many of his posts reaches levels of frustration, wanting to get his physics questions answered while asking the general public to answer them instead of asking the questions directly to the physicists in the group who may be able to give an appropriate answer. This is a typical tactic used to discredit. Unfortunately, the form of much of "Bob-a-thon's" discourse is replete with ad hominum attacks which question our integrity, intelligence and motives, among other things. While perhaps emotionally cathartic for the writer, this style detracts from the seriousness of the issues being discussed. Those yet to be familiar with actual debates in physics might be persuaded by his attacks and appeals to authority. We find the following quote a fair description of " Bob-a-thon's" style:

"Anyone with an axe to grind is compelled to make his arguments as outrageous and incendiary as possible". - President Barack Hussein Obama, May 2010.

Clearly, when a professor is teaching the standard model day in and day out, utilizing very famous reference books and teaching students that these are, in a sense, immutable facts, to have someone come along with something that contradicts everything that you have been taught and are teaching every day is extremely upsetting, and for good reasons. After all, these established laws of physics have been there for decades, in some cases, and have been worked on by thousands of well-known physicists. So how could a virtual unknown come up with something that is completely contrary to what has been thought to be correct? A professor or an individual in this position may be inclined to go on a crusade to put an end to such calamity and save the uninitiated by redirecting them towards the obvious established truth. This seems to be a fairly easy task since much of what is said by this obviously "delusional" individual fails to agree with the "known facts" of physics. But wait; what if these new ideas were correct, or, at the very least, contained some truth? A professor might understand well what works in the standard model, but perhaps has yet to understand the details of what does not work and its implications. Indeed, why should he study what fails to work in the standard model?

reply to post by Mary Rose



Let me take a piece of the Haramein's quote that you posted:

So how could a virtual unknown come up with something that is completely contrary to what has been thought to be correct?

Answer: that "virtual unknown" came up with something that is totally bogus and wrong. And, in his own words, that pile of pseudo-intellectual garbage is indeed completely contrary to our experimental observations and theoretical thought.

Vision of grandeur does not a smart person make (Yoda).

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Answer: that "virtual unknown" came up with something that is totally bogus and wrong.

Prove it.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Answer: that "virtual unknown" came up with something that is totally bogus and wrong.

Prove it.

Yawn.

It's been shown, very clearly.

Mary, please find and list all these ad hominems that Haramein claims my criticism to be full of. (Of course you won't, you like his claims and you don't care where they come from.)

I won't ask you to point to anything Haramein said in his reply that is constructive or professional, because you don't understand it, so that wouldn't be fair.

You could try to find evidence in my blog that I'm portraying myself as "the arbiter of truth and the authority representing true science", perhaps? (Of course you won't, because as you said you don't want to read it, and anyway you like his claims and you don't care where they come from.)

You could ask Haramein why, when I asked "questions directly to the physicists in the group who may be able to give an appropriate answer", I was banned from his group and my questions deleted? (Of course you won't, you'll take his claim that I didn't do that at face value, because you like his claims and you don't care where they come from.)

You could try to find anything in my writing that supports his claim that I'm "teaching the standard model day in and day out, utilizing very famous reference books and teaching students that these are, in a sense, immutable facts", which would obviously be an idiotic thing for anyone teaching science to do if you think about it (which you won't...). (Of course you won't find anything like that, but who cares, because you like his claims and you don't care where they come from.)

"So how could a virtual unknown come up with something that is completely contrary to what has been thought to be correct?" – that's very easy, as Buddhasystem says. Make it up! Pass it off as fact to people who don't know how to think for themselves. They won't notice. They'll take the claims as if they're true, and use them to defend it! Absurd, but true.

He also asks, rhetorically, "Indeed, why should he study what fails to work in the standard model?" Funnily enough everyone who works on or with the standard model DOES study its limits and the realms in which it fails. But to do that, one must know what the standard model actually is. Which he doesn't.

Mary, one more question for you. When you put your challenges to me and to others, we answer them. When we ask you questions, you ignore them. Or you throw quotes back that you don't understand (if you understood them, you'd know how vacuous and irrelevant they were). I know you won't respond to any of the questions I've put to you. Why is that?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Answer: that "virtual unknown" came up with something that is totally bogus and wrong.

Prove it.

Mary, after dozens and maybe hundreds of posts on this subject that I either read or authored, I can't be bothered to go back and re-list all the theses about very obvious (and copious) deficiencies in Haramein's "theory". Please take the trouble of reading the thread(s). If you aren't capable of reading and understanding my critique (which is straightforward and pretty much based on what is observed) you have no business in being Haramain's advocate here. It just looks sad, one blind person leading the way for another. I posted so many retorts to Haramein's idiotic concoction, it's been enough. You can't reply to any of my posts because you don't know physics. And I do. And let's leave it at that.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto":

Students are taught first what works, which takes care of most of their studies in physics until higher education, where at the Ph.D. level the student is asked to produce novel work. Typically at that level most candidates are encouraged to choose problems that have a chance to be resolved within their lifetime, and consequently, very few Ph.D. candidates address any of the most fundamental issues in physics, such as the source of mass, or even the source of charge.

Certainly one hardly expects a Ph.D. thesis to solve the unification problem. These tasks are usually left to the veteran physicists and mathematicians who, in some cases, have been thinking about these issues for decades. These guys are quite different than the average physicist who teaches the standard model in colleges and universities every day and who believes the standard view to be fairly complete. That is why throughout the years, so many Ph.D. physicists I encountered knew nothing about the "vacuum catastrophe" nor the enormous vacuum energy density or even the bare mass and bare charge of the electron (which we will discuss later on). That is why, as well, even at the age of 47, when I show up and present in unification conferences, whether private or open to the scientific community, I am usually the youngest of the bunch.

The CASYS '09 conference was such an occasion . . .

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?

The reason I want to 'debunk' him is because he's wrong. I teach physics and maths to students . . . 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 . . .

I can tell which is which, but I fear that some of the followers of Nassim Haramein can't. . . .

Nothing but “charisma and a silvery tongue”?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . 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.

I think this is interesting, from"John Hagelin: How meditation transformed my student years":

The renowned American quantum physicist John Hagelin has described how he first learned Transcendental Meditation after a serious road accident as a teenager, and how his first few experiences of the technique inspired his lifetime’s work. . . .

. . . But most unexpectedly, when he returned to his Physics studies, he found that 20 minutes of meditation transformed quantum mechanics, which he found dry and demanding, into a vivid, technicolour experience.

I think this is also interesting, from an article criticizing the book Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos, and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness by Victor Stenger, "Mistaken, Misinformed and Misleading" by David Scharf, Department of Physics, Maharishi University of Management:

. . . Quantum spirituality—the idea that some aspect of consciousness plays a fundamental role in the universe and that advanced physics should be interpreted as having to some extent already incorporated this principle—has had distinguished representation among both physicists and philosophers. It has generated an upsurge of grassroots enthusiasm because of the widespread sense that science and spirituality, rather than being fundamentally separate or even opposed, are in fact deeply connected and mutually reinforcing. . . .

I believe the wave of the future is a synthesis of science and spirituality.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I believe the wave of the future is a synthesis of science and spirituality.

Me too.