Nassim Haramein solves Einstein's dream of a unified field theory?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The Produ ct Description for the book that appears on Amazon.com states things that apply to Haramein's work and the response to it by some:

Product Description

In this compelling tour through the world of anomalous research, Richard Milton makes clear what the scientific establishment takes pains to deny: plenty of hard experimental evidence already exists for such things as cold fusion

"Paradigm police" - this is an apt description.

Well if you take the cold fusion example referenced, there seems to be some kind of evidence of something going on, though the jury still seems to be out on exactly what is happening and it would be premature to conclude it's really cold fusion. But this article is interesting: www.foxnews.com...

But what that article refers to is what's claimed in the quote "plenty of hard experimental evidence already exists", as there is experimental evidence of something going on which may or may not be cold fusion.

However, why do you claim this is related to Haramein? If anything that quote highlights one of the biggest complaints I have about Haramein. His story is the complete opposite of that story about experimental evidence for possible cold fusion...Haramein has absolutely no experimental evidence at all. So rather than supporting him I think you've drawn attention to one reason why we can't take his work seriously while other "against the mainstream" type topics like "cold fusion" do in fact have some interesting experimental evidence that needs to be explained somehow.

By the way, that book link didn't work for me for whatever reason.

reply to post by Mary Rose


(Too late to edit.)

Post to try to make the book link work - will link to a different page for the book:

Alternative Science

reply to post by Arbitrageur


What I had in mind was "the marginalization of unorthodox research," in view of the fact that there are lots of issues with physics that Haramein deals with that mainstream physicists and supporters of mainstream physics refuse to recognize and choose, instead, to ridicule research done by certain people.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

What I had in mind was "the marginalization of unorthodox research," in view of the fact that there are lots of issues with physics that Haramein deals with that mainstream physicists and supporters of mainstream physics refuse to recognize and choose, instead, to ridicule research done by certain people.

Unorthodox research should not be marginalised or ridiculed, that is true.

But that is not Haramein.

Haramein sells himself, his products and his image based ONLY on his claims
Haramein carries on regardless of the blatant flaws that have been revealed in his methods and the unambiguous reasons why his 'physics' has nothing to do with anything measurable in the real world
Haramein deprecates anyone who asks probing questions into his 'science'
Haramein relies absolutely on the ignorance and blind faith of his audience

Haramein doesn't need marginalising or ridiculing - he's marginalised himself by being ridiculous and disreputable by pretending to be something he is not.

It's NOT unorthodox research. It's fraud and incompetence. And it doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to realise that there are very good reasons why fraud and incompetence should remain marginalised.

reply to post by Mary Rose

By the way, Haramein has NEVER raised a single issue that mainstream physicists refuse to recognise. That's just false. Give me an example of one if you disagree.

(PS when I say an example, I don't mean a quote from Haramein)

reply to post by Mary Rose
But you ended up making the point I've been trying to make all along. The way to get unorthodox views accepted is with evidence. While I think cold fusion is yet to be proven, at least there's evidence being presented and the Navy test lab was able to not only replicate something but find some high energy neutrons. Maybe there's another explanation for them besides cold fusion, but at least there's an argument to be made, and while it may be an uphill battle to change a paradigm even with evidence, if the evidence is incontrovertible,the battle can be won, in fact that's how paradigms are changed.

If someone (like Haramein) is trying to convince the scientific community to change a paradigm in the absence of evidence, it's not going to happen and ridicule shouldn't be a surprise. Comments that we may not see any evidence supporting his ideas within his lifetime don't help either.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


He's working on a unified theory.

I don't buy your argument about evidence.

And you have not acknowledged the issues he's working on.

Dropping the ridicule, in any case, would be appropriate, in my opinion.

For the benefit of people simply reading this thread, there is another thread that shows the ridicule and response to ridicule regarding Haramein's work: Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I don't buy your argument about evidence.

...and you almost sound like the voice from motivational tapes by AmWay: "if you believe enough, facts don't matter". So if Haramein's is like a fantasy book for you and you get a kick out of it, more power to you. Just don't drag real physics and real physicists anywhere near that stuff.

If you ignore facts and evidence, you remove yourself far, far away from the science of physics, so please don't sell Haramein's papers as such. There are just New Age Crystals.

reply to post by buddhasystem


It's already been established on this thread that his work is published by the real physics world.

I'm not going to rehash that.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

 

He's working on a unified theory.

I don't buy your argument about evidence.

And you have not acknowledged the issues he's working on.

Dropping the ridicule, in any case, would be appropriate, in my opinion.

You believe we should all treat his work with respect, despite the fact that you're unable to give a single reason or explanation other than parroting his own claims for his own work.

His claims are objectively ridiculous. I've explained why in some detail, as you know.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

It's already been established on this thread that his work is published by the real physics world.

Physics papers are not usually published in proceedings of minor COMPUTER SCIENCE gatherings.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I don't buy your argument about evidence.

Dropping the ridicule, in any case, would be appropriate, in my opinion.

You don't have to buy my argument about evidence. I'm simply explaining the way the real world works. Since the point of your post seems to be how difficult it is to get novel ideas accepted, if you don't think evidence is the way to get them accepted, then what do you suggest is the better alternative?

Regarding the ridicule, as Arthur Schopenhauer said:
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

The corollary to that is, if a novel idea is not true, or if there's no evidence to back up the claim, how do you expect it to get past the first part?

As far as I can tell, the scientific community isn't even ridiculing him, probably because the computer modeling conference proceedings his paper got published in isn't where they'd look to find physics papers.

I really don't like ridiculing people, but he's asking for it by posing as a real physicist and then claiming that a 3D cube has no volume because the 6 planes that make up its surface have no volume, screwing up a concept from 8th grade geometry that anyone should be able to comprehend, scientist or not, and then going on to make even bigger blunders that my high school physics classmates could point out.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

 

It's already been established on this thread that his work is published by the real physics world.

Since when did you presume to speak for "the real physics world"?

Regarding the issue of Haramein's publication by the AIP, I refer you to my comment on here.

The details of everything there can be cross-checked with a little investigation, which as ever I invite anyone to do.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
This thread is about Haramein's work and my only interest is in posting the relevant items to show to those reading the thread about his work his responses to your attacks.

Here is a fine example of his 'work'

Video Proof That Nibiru Has Come and Gone



Never heard so much BS and outright lies in one video before...

Oh and info is EASY to get on that comet... as long as you are looking for a COMET and not Nibiru

Comet NEAT C/2002 V1 2003



With great minds like Nassim ( who admits he was kicked out of physics class and believes you have a black hole in your brain) I guess I can hang up my hat... seems he has it all covered

Originally posted by zorgon
Never heard so much BS and outright lies in one video before...

I'm glad some poeple can see through his BS.

Let's see, how would a Haramein follower respond to that?

"You're not thinking outside the box"
"Mainstream science doesn't have all the answers"
"You haven't solved all the unsolved problems in physics so don't claim you know what you're talking about"
"Nassim's self-educated approach is better than the biased teaching you get in a mainstream education"
what else?

The one that bothers me is when Nassim says we are infinitely dense. I know some of his followers like that, but I find it insulting.

I haven't seen that comet video before, thanks for posting it, though I saw his physics lecture before. He knows even less about astronomy than he does about physics, if that's possible.

reply to post by zorgon


Thanks Zorgon.

It's kind of unnerving to see Nassim selling his toxic wares to unsuspecting public.

I feel guilt on behalf of the physics community because apparently we don't do nearly enough in terms of outreach. And then, charlatans fill the void.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
He knows even less about astronomy than he does about physics, if that's possible.

What do you know, he bested himself! I especially liked the "enormous gravitational field".

reply to post by zorgon


Zorgon,

I respect the hell out of your contributions, but you really jumped the gun on this one. He never claimed that Comet Neat was Niburu, that was labeled by some idiot on youtube. I'm a little discouraged by your hastiness, because you obviously haven't watched that presentation he gave in 2003.

Originally posted by OnTheFelt
reply to post by zorgon

 

Zorgon,

I respect the hell out of your contributions, but you really jumped the gun on this one. He never claimed that Comet Neat was Niburu, that was labeled by some idiot on youtube. I'm a little discouraged by your hastiness, because you obviously haven't watched that presentation he gave in 2003.

I'm not Zorgon and I disagreed with him in 99% cases, but look, Nibiru isn't there I did watch all of the video and it's cr@p Haramein's style.

So, you really believe that the object was much larger than Jupiter?? I mean not the nebulous tail which probably weighs a few tons total, but the nucleus?