Nassim Haramein: genius or fraud? Flaws in theory.

[Kai]

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

For those who haven't watched any of Haramein's lectures: they're epic. It's like something straight out of a good acid trip you've had once that changed your entire worldview; but all nicely put together into objective scientific and mathematical terms. Like an ultimate marriage between science and spirituality, it's really quite something.

But, unfortunately, there's something about him that really, really, really disappoints me; he's wrong about a lot of shit that a "physicist" at his level should absolutely not be wrong about under any circumstances whatsoever.

http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... art-2.html

http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/ ... assim.html

...well fuck

Usually, when I'm doing any type of research or I'm reading a book, and the author get's just one thing wrong I throw it down and I'm like "fuck that guy, he's wrong, I don't trust a damn thing he says" haha :twisted: But I'd really like to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, because his ideas are some of the most intriguing I've learned about in the past few years, and I don't think he's some type of bullshit fraud or false "new agey" prophet just trying to make a buck. Because it seems to me that he's actually is doing a good amount of hard work and has a good heart.

So I'd really appreciate it if someone on here who has a better background in physics than me and has researched Haramein's ideas a good bit could help me discern between his mistakes and the things he actually does have correct.

Sure he has a good amount of intellectual fails, but I'm willing to let that pass if some of the major claims he has made are true. I want to find the diamond hidden in the dirt, just need help finding it.

Thanks!

 

[Kai]

shit the embed didn't work

here's the link to his lecture i watched

 

[Kai]

lol and now I'm just confused and don't even have the energy to search through all this:

Nassim's response to criticism:
http://www.supernaturalresearch.com/201 ... and-logic/

Critic "bobs" counter-response:
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/ ... athon.html

I am being intellectually lazy today is it wrong to delegate the task of thinking to someone else who has the time?

 

[maxfreakout]

The basic problem with this guy is that he falsely advertises himself as a 'physicist', when in fact he barely grasps elementary textbook physics.

He is not a physicist, he is just one spiritualist teacher/guru among many others (Eckhart Tolle, Deepak Chopra etc etc), what he is doing in all these youtube videos is not physics, it is just excessively longwinded, largely directionless banter which loosely points to and outlines some quite trippy deep transcendent concepts, such as fractal geometry and paradigm-shifting.

The other spiritualist teachers are all doing exactly the same thing that he is doing, but imo they all do it better, you would be far better off, and learn much more, from an enlightened teacher who is honest enough not to repeatedly lie about his credentials, and misadvertise himself the way Haramein does.

'Bob's' critique of Haramein is spot on, and it is a much more worthwhile read than anything Haramein has written

 

[Kai]

...which explains his logic flaws I suppose.

But my question is, mathematically, and scientifically; is there anything he got right, despite the fails?? Cause that would be really fucking cool in my opinion.

And to me it seems like there has to be some element to truth in what he is saying, scientifically speaking.

 

[IJesusChrist]

What he claims, and then what he writes in his papers are two different things, and one of two things is the explanation for that;
1. He's an idiot, and doesn't realize that he hasn't solved any problems.
or
2. He realizes that most of his audience is easily persuaded by his speeches but not educated enough in his field in order to critique his paper, so he can slide by.

He is very intelligent, but he doesn't have the formal background in order to form a solid basis for his knowledge. He is too loose in his quests for answers, and once he thinks he has it, he doesn't have the ability, or understanding, to fully prove his formulas or hypotheses in a rigorous manner, leaving the educated at a loss to gain anything from his papers...

I hope that helps. That is the honest truth from everything I've gathered from him.

He looks for elegant answers, which is important in science, but usually the elegant answers lay very hidden, much more so than what he proposes. He is using high school level physics to solve problems that have been troubling graduate and doctoral level physicists for nearly a century... He will need to invent a new math in order to find new elegance, I highly doubt that there are still "easily" obtainable elegant solutions to the universe simply laying in high-school text books.

 

[Kai]

Yeah I understand that, which frustrates and disappoints the living hell out of me.

BUT, I really wish somebody would direct to WHAT HE HAS GOT RIGHT despite the horrible flaws. Cause what he's talking about is AMAZING.

 

[Light]

The thing is that truth is a whole, it is not partial.

If he bases his whole theory on a fundamental misunderstanding, the whole thing falls like a house of cards when you remove this basis. So what he has got right, even if it IS right, isn't proven by his method and 'proofs'.

Scientifically, it is not even an hypothesis.

 

[Kai]

...god dammit :evil:

 

[IJesusChrist]

he barely says anything amazing at all, he just says what you want to hear, really.

 

[Kai]

he barely says anything amazing at all, he just says what you want to hear, really.

Why does this make me want to slap you haha?

 

[IJesusChrist]

It is true man, he says a great deal of interesting things, but in the end I found I hadn't really learned anything new. He has simply said things that have been said before by numerous spiritual speakers, and attempted to tie those concepts into science...

I think I'll let this guy go though. He isn't dangerous, he isn't stupid, he is just too loose in his quest for knowledge. He doesn't question himself enough.

(I think he just gets really fucking high and thinks about shit)

 

[ophiuchus]

If he bases his whole theory on a fundamental misunderstanding

all of science is based on a fundamental misunderstanding...

 

[IJesusChrist]

If he bases his whole theory on a fundamental misunderstanding

all of science is based on a fundamental misunderstanding...

Can you back this claim up?

Science allows you on the computer, science allows you to get to your gym, science allows you to fill your fridge and have a fridge, science allows you to live in a house and be heated/cooled, science has explained the solar system, science has landed us on the moon and robots on mars, science has split the atom, science has read the genome, science...

really man? You need to be able to accept that science is real, and although there are a lot of hard-asses with tucked in shirts and big ole' glasses in the field, it isn't some made up shit in order to cover up a magical fairy world under our noses.

It can't get everything right - or we'd have nothing to explore. Hence science continues to discover, learn, and advance.

 

[maxfreakout]

BUT, I really wish somebody would direct to WHAT HE HAS GOT RIGHT despite the horrible flaws. Cause what he's talking about is AMAZING.

Science is never about getting things 'right' (ie making true statements), rather science is all about continuously increasing the accuracy (= predictive power) of the model, scientists make bold conjectures/hypotheses, then subject them to rigorous testing to try to falsify them, that is how scientific progress is made. Scientists dont ever make true statements, they make conjectures which are possibly false (falsifiable), then they try very hard to falsify them. The best science is the science which stands up the best to these attempts at falsification.

Haramein claims that the universe is fractal, is he right? who knows, but for a much better (deeper, trippier, more entertaining and less dishonest) exposition of the fractal universe theory, read 'the invisible landscape' by Terence Mckenna

 

[ophiuchus]

really man? You need to be able to accept that science is real, and although there are a lot of hard-asses with tucked in shirts and big ole' glasses in the field, it isn't some made up shit in order to cover up a magical fairy world under our noses.

is that what i said? i don't think that at any point in my entire life i've ever said it wasn't useful or real, or implied anything of the sort. (not that that statement even makes sense) you should learn that there are some times when it's best to just SHUT THE FUCK UP and think instead of acting like a prick because someone doesn't agree with you.

you dismiss every piece of evidence that is handed to you if you don't automatically agree with it, :smoke: and give nothing back but half baked insults that mimic the appearance of a real point. so no, i'm not going to bother backing that claim up because a scientist themselves will tell you the exact same thing.

 

[IJesusChrist]

you should learn that there are some times when it's best to just SHUT THE FUCK UP

instead of acting like a prick

you dismiss every piece of evidence that is handed to you if you don't automatically agree with it and give nothing back but half baked insults that mimic the appearance of a real point.

so no, i'm not going to bother backing that claim up because

It is clear to me that you're response fits you exactly. You have yet to ever, once respond to any of my questions in any constructive manner. I've watched his videos, and explained them exactly the way I feel about them, and everything I have learned about him.

You do not explain anything, and in this thread, all you have given is video links, blatantly showing me that you either do not know what he is talking about, or you are too lazy to explain, which is it?

give nothing back [/b]but half baked insults that mimic the appearance of a real point.

I've watched all his videos, and I can tell you are bitter that I disagree with him, but really allusion, you need to learn to question people who like sacred geometry or astrology.

 

[Mescaline]

Okay, I know I don't post a lot (actually I barely post at all), and some of you might just dismiss me because of that (and because of the length of this post :wink, but I really feel I have to say something about this whole discussion-gone-wild. What's up with all the ad-hominem arguments. They don't accomplish anything. They just make you look avoidant. And even if you are on the receiving end of the ad-hominem argument, I really assume that you can do better than to reply with yet another ad-hominem. I mean, what is this.. Kindergarten? This forum used to be about sharing knowledge and valuable insights, now it seems to be about convincing others of one's own convictions. I'm not going to choose any sides here, except my own. If you feel like classifying me as either side: go ahead. But it's not what I'm trying to do; I just want to give my own perspective on all of this (it is kind of a long post, sorry for that).

I've been on the border of anti- and pro-science for quite some time, and I have had strong negative feelings for a lot of mainstream science because of those "hard-asses with tucked in shirts and big ole' glasses" as IJC called them. I understand very well how all of this energy can just boil up, and makes you want to punch those people in the face for not even listening or considering alternative perspectives. The downside of this is that I myself did exactly the same, I did not listen to their theories and perspectives, or rather did not consider them thoroughly.
Now, this has lasted for roughly the last 4 years, (nearly) my entire Bachelor study in psychology. This was, in my opinion, partly attributable to the extremely bad nature of nearly all lectures given within Psychology at my university (and I mean really bad). Now since the beginning of this academic year I transferred to a pre-Master in Philosophy of Psychology and I suddenly discovered that there are actually professors and scientists that think in similar ways, and not only outside mainstream science, but right there at my university. This came as a rather big (positive) shock to me. There actually are respected academics that do question all the fundamental assumptions that underlie all science. They just aren't "scientists" but philosophers of science.

The above is not really about what I was planning on saying, but it gives you an idea of where I am coming from. So, I did watch the first video that Allusion provided a link of. Here is what I think (I am no student of mathematics or physics, so please excuse any 'stupid' claims I make; I'm all open to correction or additional remarks):

First, in my opinion he has some very interesting thoughts going on, but they are more in the realm of philosophy than science. This doesn't mean they are bad ideas, they just should not be seen as an attempt to show us, the audience, "Here this is what it is like and everything that goes against it is just plain wrong" but rather as "Maybe we could invest some more time into this way of thinking, because maybe there is some truth to it, even if I haven't nailed it yet, or uncovered what this truth actually beholds".
Second, while I was watching the video, something was extremely bothering me. Why does he insist on making his lectures a kind of stand-up comedy for the intelligent? Now, I don't mean that everything he is saying is a joke; what I mean is that somewhat 50% (maybe even more.. it's been a while since I watched the video) of his lecture is him telling jokes and funny anecdotes. What is that all about..? One of the first things I learned about giving presentations is that one should keep the humor to a minimum. Of course a joke or funny anecdote here and there are good to keep your audience awake, but he is surely doing it way too much. First I feel kind of betrayed by it; I watched his lecture to gain some new knowledge or insight. Not to be entertained. If I want to be entertained I watch comedy or do something else I consider to be fun. Second flaw of too many jokes is that the audience is distracted by it. Flawed scientists are actually known for using superfluous humor to hide the flaws in their theory. An audience more easily forgets the point or argument given just before or even during the joke. So this made me question his authenticity right away. It might make one popular and fun but it is a very bad trait for a serious scientist.
Well, third, and last - although I am extremely restricted in giving any credible account of this, due to the time it has been that I watched the video and my limited knowledge of mathematics and physics - it seemed to me that some of his ideas just came falling from the sky. I mean, he doesn't explain much as far as I can tell. He just proposes *something* which I can't even really put my finger on what it is he is proposing. At some points I actually thought what was supposed to be so special about what he was saying.. It all seemed kind of straightforward and old (primarily in the beginning). Then when he finally comes to a point in his lecture where the actual substance of his talk is brought forward, it was over within maybe 10-20 minutes (excluding all the entertainment). He just pops some equation on the screen and tells us, that through the use of that he concluded this and that. How? Why? Then a graph is presented and he does pretty much the same over again. Why is it even a problem that the mass of the proton doesn't fit the line? Or maybe if one would change the equation producing the line (now assuming the equation is not perfect) everything would make sense.. No? That way you do not have to alter the way of calculating the mass of a proton, and one would not get such counter-intuitive results as he got.

So, in conclusion, it is all very interesting, especially the observation of anomalies that do not fit the current theories. I'm all for paradigm-shifts within science. Without them there would never be any really big progress going on. And as I implied before, I find his lecture interesting in the sense that it can encourage others in those fields of science to conduct further experiments and to invent new theories or new ways of thinking about reality which do fit our observations of reality. But I cannot with good conscious just surrender myself to his theory. It doesn't fully convince me. I am sorry if you do not agree with me, and you surely do not have to agree with me. It's just about sharing knowledge, perspectives and insights. If we would all agree all the time, discussions or debates would never arise, and it is precisely that which really progresses science: Disagreement.

Now I'll stop here. Again, sorry for the long post, but thanks if you read all of it.

 

[Illegalsmile]

i think mescaline right with the name calling, u guys been hangin out on other forums lately?

i personally love this site because everyones so respectful and doesnt really get angry (at least the mature ones)
and even when things on this forum go bad, they are not really that bad compared to how much egos and bullying prevail on other popular sites and chat rooms all around the internet. i think u guys just caught eachother in a bad mood

and as for this nassim guy, i watched 15 mins of one of his hour long videos. some of his stuff i just could not understand but one thing that stood out and made perfect sense to me was his example of how to make infinite information in a contained space.
the one where he showed the circle then made infinite patterns within the circle smaller and smaller but they would never leave the circle. he proved it on paper and i myself have always speculated that we will never find the smallest particle and never see the end of the universe because it IS INFINITE AND FINITE. i also really like how be blends the best parts of both science and religion/philosophy because i too think that they are one in the same of understanding the world. like mescaline said there ARE people who believe both u know, scientists that believe in god and spiritual people practicing science

the fact that maxfreakout, a guy who ive never seen discredit someone, says hes wrong makes me think about it. but i believe nassim is right about how we can have science and religion, the finite, and infinite in the same universe. we need both or we would not have our world today

by the way terence mckenna is still my favorite

 

[ophiuchus]

thank you mescaline and illegalsmile, i appreciate your input on this, and agree with your posts as a whole. however, it should be noted that, in regards to this point:

You have yet to ever, once respond to any of my questions in any constructive manner.

You do not explain anything

IJC, you are ABSOLUTELY FULL OF SHIT. i've tried to explain nearly EVERYTHING to you for the first year that you had been here, it is not my fault that you fail to grasp any point, really that anyone makes. im reserving any discussions you've made about chemistry here, because i haven't taken part in them and so wont reach beyond what i know. swim through the cacophony of your posts and find some of our earlier discussions if you memory is failing you. the discussions ARE there. this is maybe the third time ever that i have decided to not waste hours of my time trying to explain something to you.

go ahead, call me "too lazy to explain" if you can only think of two possible answers for why im not defending a stance in this thread. how about, after trying for several years to get any given point across your face, i feel as though on a good day, i could count them on one hand, with a lot of real estate left over. this is observation, not assumption. i've been "communicating" with you for years now. sorry if i've grown tired of hashing and rehashing and rehashing the same points over and over and over again. i can't say that i enjoy spending over an hour on one post explaining something that the intended recipient probably won't "get" anyways.

never have i stated that i agree with this man in his entirety. never have i stated that i dont appreciate science. sorry that i keep an open mind not only to the things you know and love, but ALSO to the things which you dismiss.

so cool, think of me as an asshole. i don't care about how i am perceived by you, because im not calling you names that are irrelevant and don't apply, im simply making observations-that's all that i've ever done here- and im sorry if you set yourself up so bad for criticism. that's all it is, is criticism. when you have valuable input, i acknowledge and appreciate it, but i will most definitely note that when you speculate beyond your reaches and fabricate lies simply to get your point across, I WILL CALL YOU ON IT. why don't you just stop lying, btw?

[quote:39frwwd4]give nothing back [/b]but half baked insults that mimic the appearance of a real point.

I've watched all his videos, and I can tell you are bitter that I disagree with him, but really allusion, you need to learn to question people who like sacred geometry or astrology.[/quote:39frwwd4]

im not bitter that you dont get the video. it's just sad that you get so caught up in the details, that you dont get the idea of it as a whole. i just dont get how you dont get it, so i figured maybe if i spoke louder, and held your hand through it, just for you, maybe you would have gotten it. but thus far it has not worked.

but really, all of what i have said here is beyond that, if it wasn't clear already, im not talking about this thread at all. my comments to you about any of this go FAR beyond this thread. when im saying you just dont get it, i mean, really, you JUST DONT GET IT, period. and im sorry. i've sincerely tried my hardest to help you understand a lot of things, and i've simply reached my limit for you. it's time for me to invest my time into people willing to hear, and not just listen. and that's the cold honest truth.