Letter to Dr. Bob-a-thon,
I wanted to start with thanking Dr. Bob-a-thon for his efforts in elucidating some of the mathematical topological problems I hadn’t had time or interest to address. I typically avoid wasting my time participating in these so-called debunking sessions. However, as I can see that the gentleman has invested substantial efforts in this particular example, and because it is such a prime and typical expression of the reactionary tendencies defending against all odds the status quo and proclaiming it as “the truth”, I feel obligated to reply.
I’d like to clarify however that these tendencies are usually found at a certain level of scientific development which typically includes professors at college level that do an excellent job at regurgitating previously accredited work, but don’t necessarily understand the process of discovering new science, and certainly new physics, in this case. This process, unlike what is described in the gentleman’s comments below his article, is a process of creative thinking and application that determine the adequacy of the fundamental concepts of a theory prior to the notability typically associated with previously established theories. I am sorry, but the true scientific process does not include personal attacks, character assassinations and name-calling. Although these methods are commonly found in today’s scientific communities, they are certainly not an appropriate way to conduct science or to conduct oneself as a professional in any field of expertise. New ideas that may seem completely alien to a current approach indeed may become the standard of tomorrow.
In certain spheres of physics, and I assure you, they’re not so common, creative thoughts and concepts that are far from the standard view are encouraged and dialoged. How else could science evolve? However from a certain perspective, the new thoughts or the unusual approach appears as a slap in the face to the current popular and accepted theories. In the case of unification theory, it is even more dramatic, as many physicists across the globe agree, it is clear after almost 100 years of searching, that a significant change most likely is necessary either to the field equations, or to quantum theory, or even to both, in order to reconcile fundamental issues that have been plaguing physics for over a century. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics) And as we will see below, these problems are non-trivial (and I mean that in a mathematical reasoning sense)!
As such, most of these creative ideas, as seen throughout history, typically come from outside, independent thinkers who blindside the academic institutions: Einstein being the most famous example, as he published what were considered to be extremely controversial views at the time, while working as a third class clerk at the Burn patent office. The same man later authored, while recollecting the difficulties he encountered in publishing and getting acceptance for his ideas: “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”
I actually don’t believe in mediocre minds, as I consider that everyone is born brilliant but that certain life experiences and difficulties can reduce one’s capacity to access deeper levels of awareness that are necessary for creative and fundamental reflection. Here the inhibitors are constraints resulting from a style of education in which what is taught is proclaimed as the truth and the only truth, and where students are discouraged and severely reprimanded if they tend to wander in the awful world of untruth as predetermined by the Obvious Truth Holder. This type of attitude engenders these typical remarks from the gentleman who is the Obvious Truth Holder:
“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.”
Remarkable! It reminds me of this example from an elementary school teacher. This attitude is most likely what Einstein was pointing at when he stated, “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”
I have been participating in multi-disciplinary physics conferences for some 15 years, and as a child, I commonly co-moderated discussion groups and group therapy sessions with my father, as he elaborated new concepts of education and contributed to his colleague Jean Piaget’s famous work on child development, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget
Further, I have taught thousands of people throughout my time both in the ski and climbing industries and some 20 years of giving lectures and seminars. I have learned a few things throughout these years and one of them is that truth is a moving target. The truths of today were once untruths, and the untruths of today may become the truth of tomorrow. So Dr. Bob-a-thon, do not fear losing sight of the truth, as what you have found in the standard model is a partial truth and certainly an incomplete model and should be taught as such.
But this is not about analysis of the downfalls of our current educational system, but about a rectification of the facts which the gentleman accuses me of overlooking and of jumping to conclusions without having investigated completely. Yet, and as is typical with this type of attack, the gentleman himself, in his first assertion of proof of my fraudulent activity (thinking new thoughts), is the one that distorts facts and jumps to conclusions without thorough investigation.
In his point #1, the first and second paragraph clearly attempt to discredit the validity of the CASYS’09 Conference because of the gentleman’s unfamiliarity with this event and insinuates that the postings on my website mislead people to believe that it was an award given for all of physics where it is made clear that the award was given to The Schwarzschild Proton paper for the section of the CASYS’09 Conference in the field of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation” which took place at the University of Liege in Belgium. http://www2.ulg.ac.be/mathgen/CHAOS/
Furthermore, it is clear that the gentleman didn’t take the time to go and investigate the program timetable to examine the other papers that my paper was competing against as he didn’t seem to know how many were submitted in this particular section. The gentleman is correct in asserting that not so many papers would be found there (approximately 20) as not many people in this world have either the capacity to work at this level, or the leisure to find the time to do in depth investigation of extremely difficult problems that were found insurmountable by some of the greatest thinkers in our history.
The papers that were submitted this year were of very high quality from researchers from a wide international community and very reputable institutions. This is nothing unusual for the CASYS Conference physics section, as previous years have seen Nobel Prize Laureates participate, such as in CASYS’07 where I presented as well. As such, I was quite surprised to find my paper winning the Best Paper Award as it was competing against veteran physicists and researchers, including papers from the director of the conference himself. How much did the selection committee know about physics? I don’t know. However, the quality of the physics papers that have been submitted certainly demands that the reviewers have some fairly advanced understanding of physics to be able to even comprehend any of it. It wasn’t the Nobel Prize, however, I wonder how many prizes the gentleman has won in physics?
It seems like I can’t even get the gentleman’s real name or find any of his credentials to be able to ascertain his capacity to review my work. As such, since he gave himself the name Bob-a-thon I shall call him Dr. Bob-a-thon, which, interestingly, I found to have a very disturbing definition in the urban dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=b.+o : “b.o.b.-a-thon: It may be that the gentleman had not done a full investigation before jumping to conclusions and choosing this pseudonym.
In point #2, the gentleman suggests that my Schwarzschild Proton paper has no merit as such, and supports his argument using three comments. I will address them one by one (for a complete rebuttal of his technical criticisms of the Schwarzschild proton, read http://theresonanceproject.org/schwarzschild-proton-manifesto).
a) “His overall argument is circular”
This assertion is quite remarkable as The Schwarzschild Proton, while proposing a unification view, attempts to resolve a very significant circular argument found in the standard model. Almost a century ago, when it was determined that there seemed to be a highly charged nucleon at the center of atoms that contained most of their mass and that this entity was composed of particles that somehow must have been held together against their electrostatic charge (Coulomb repulsion), the scientific community at large adopted the concept of some mysterious strong force plucked out of thin air that happened to be in the correct proportion to produce a confinement necessary for proton to proton interaction. Later on it was found that the proton seemed to have internal structures called quarks and since those are confined in an even much smaller space, the color force was elaborated and made to be infinitely strong. Now the strong force at the proton scale was said to be only a remnant of the all-powerful color force of infinite nature mediated by gluons. Nowhere in the standard model is there given an argument for the source of energy that would be necessary to produce a force of infinite nature –that is, the strongest force in the Universe.
Ironically, this is a perfect example of circular thinking. One finds an error in his or her current physical model that doesn’t agree with experiment or observation, then proceeds to invent a new kind of force or even a new kind of matter (in the case of the dark matter/dark energy allegories, see below) then gives this new invention exactly the characteristics necessary to make the initial model work. Then the researcher asserts that the new quantity is confirmed, since it is predicted by the initial model which otherwise fails.
In order for the argument of the standard model to not be circular, a mechanism for the production of an infinite confining force would have had to be given, and this is exactly what The Schwarzschild Proton does. It does so by postulating a certain amount of coherent and polarized structure in the available vacuum fluctuations present at the quantum scale (known to produce foam-like structures in the spacetime manifold, according to the standard model) and contributing to high curvature near or at the horizon. This is not addressed or elaborated on in The Schwarzschild Proton paper, although it is better referenced in the final copy for publication which is not available on the internet yet. However, my earlier papers Collective Coherent Oscillation Plasma Modes In Surrounding Media of Black Holes and Vacuum Structure – Quantum Processes with Considerations of Spacetime Torque and Coriolis Forces and Spinors, Twistors, Quaternions, and the “Spacetime” Torus Topology treated this very issue and showed that soliton-like structures and acoustic plasma solutions found in the neighborhood of horizons demand a certain amount of coherent structure in the vacuum at the quantum level. Therefore, the Schwarzschild paper is not a stand-alone paper, but a continuation of investigation of a certain approach to the structure of spacetime which involves distortions due to torque and Coriolis effect which may produce discreteness at the quantum level resolving the division between the relativistic world and the quantum world. This approach has been successful in predicting many astrophysical phenomenons, including the existence of black holes prior to galactic formation (http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2009/bhbulge/). The following quote is one example from The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein’s Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.
“In this section we have shown that we can modify Einstein’s field equations and the Kerr-Newman solution in order to accommodate torque and the Coriolis forces, which we term the Haramein-Rauscher solution. Since Einstein’s field equations obey the Laplace-Poisson condition, the torquing of spacetime may be the result of the vacuum gradient density in the presence of matter-energy. Modification of the field equations makes it possible to include the torque terms and hence generate more realistic solutions. These solutions more comprehensively describe the dynamical rotational structures of galaxies, novae, supernovae, and other astrophysical structures which in this case are driven by a spacetime torque. Hence, with the inclusion of torque and Coriolis effects in Einstein’s field equations, the spacetime manifold correlates well with the observable mechanisms of black holes, galactic topology, supernova formation, stellar plasma dynamics and planetary science such as ring formation and the Coriolis structure of atmospheric dynamics. This may lead to a model where the driving torque and the dynamical Coriolis forces of the spacetime manifold topology are responsible for the observed early formation of mature spiral galaxies . Further, our model is consistent with galactic structures, the super-massive black hole at their centers, as well as polar jets, accretion disks, spiral arms and galactic halo formations.”
The impetus for the Schwarzschild Proton paper was merely to show that when a proton is treated as a mini black hole, its interactive behavior actually predicts well (considering a first order approximation since a full tensor analysis would need to be included using the Kerr-Newman metric and eventually the Haramein-Rauscher solution) the gamma emission, the interaction time and the so-called “anomalous magnetic moment” of the proton – which now has been given a source through the polarized vacuum structure.
b) “The nucleus of a single atom of hydrogen has a mass of nearly a billion tons.”
As the gentleman points out, this may be a silly thing to predict. Obviously, I thought of modifying G and the Planck’s scale so that the Schwarzschild Proton mass would come out to the standard value (as others have done http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701006), however my point in this paper is actually to show (and this is why I added a scaling graph) that objects in the Universe from universal size to subatomic particles tend towards the Schwarzschild condition as demonstrated by the scaling graph in the paper. It was clear to me when I first made the calculation that this would be an issue, and this is exactly why I included a graph based on observational data of the mass of objects in the Universe from universal size to quasars, galactic structures, stellar size objects and so on to see if the Schwarzschild proton mass had any merit whatsoever. Since the initial calculation I have made with the collaboration of Dr. Hyson, we have made many graphs, attempting to find a way to show the standard proton mass to be related to the rest of the objects in the Universe including the Planck’s mass. But in every case, whether it is the log of the mass versus the log of the surface area or the log of the mass versus surface volume ratio, or mass versus entropy (surface), the Schwarzschild condition proton falls nicely on the trend line (in some cases where we have a multitude of objects from Universal size to quasars, large galactic clusters, local superclusters and so on), while the standard model proton always falls completely off the trend line. Therefore, the mass versus radius graph reveals a hidden and profound meaning; that is, that organized matter in the Universe seems to scale in terms of its density towards the black hole condition.
The gentleman asked “why we never measure this huge mass when we weigh hydrogen (or anything else)”. First of all, here the gentleman makes a common error in his language (and I will assume it is not an error in his understanding of physics), as mass and weight are two different animals (http://www.hitxp.com/phy/cph/020902.htm). More importantly, the issue lies in the fact that so far the standard model has been unable to identify a source for the mass of objects, such as the mass of particles, as the concept of mass is a fairly esoteric concept. The best model so far from the mainstream is the Higgs mechanism which has encountered serious obstacles. Read the Higgs mass under Hierarchy problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem#The_Higgs_Mass. Here the standard model is experiencing issues in predictions that conservatively include some 11 orders of magnitude for unification. There are fundamental issues with the standard model’s understanding of mass and energy, although these issues are not commonly acknowledged. The scaling graph in The Schwarzschild Proton paper is much more than a statement about only the proton entity; it is also a statement of relationships in scales defining horizons as a quantization of spacetime.
One of the best examples is the so-called bare mass or bare field in quantum field theory. This issue has been so buried that many physicists are completely unaware of it, and the issue does not even appear as an entry in Wikipedia as very little literature can be found on it. However, the problem is extremely significant, that is, that even the standard model does not come anywhere close to predicting the mass of an atom that has been “measured” in experimental studies. In fact, when the standard model does an analysis of an electron entity, it finds that this entity must have infinite mass and infinite charge indeed. The approach of the standard model has been to ignore these results and use a renormalization term typically denoted as Z-1 to make the theory agree with experimental studies http://universe-review.ca/R15-12-QFT.htm#Green. This is an enormous fudge factor and in this article discussing it http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2008-02/msg01081.html and quoting reputable physicists, the gentleman’s conclusions are quite telling:
“…a bare electron charge and mass is infinite.. something not even Wilson Renormalization Group can get rid of. So I just wonder what is the source of the bare electron infinite charge and mass. What do you think? Initially I think it’s something akin to black hole singurality but in reality it may involve more exotic physics.”
In one way the Schwarzschild proton elucidates the fact that the energy potential necessary for confinement must be accounted for and in the final copy of The Schwarzschild Proton (not available on the net yet as it is in the publishing process) we calculate the mass dilation resulting from a proton rotating near relativistic speeds and find that at a velocity of 10^-39 slower than C, the proton exhibits the mass of a Schwarzschild entity. From there, I am planning on addressing the mass issue directly in an upcoming paper, showing that the solution to the Schwarzschild proton, which was only a first order approximation as mentioned above, should be eventually addressed in a Kerr-Newman and more importantly in a Haramein-Rauscher metric, where torque and Coriolis effects are accounted for. These effects may show that the distortion of the metrical space at the surface event horizon of the black hole structure produces turbulence and high curvature that may not be detectable from a simple long-range mass spectrometer or scattering experiments, which do not examine the highly curved structure near and at the horizon. In this case the black hole has hairs due to Coriolis effects on the structure of spacetime (Others have come to similar conclusions from completely different approaches http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9201059v1, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9604134v2, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9609084v1, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9202014v1), and it is in that fashion that I am planning on explaining the reason why the current so-called rest mass of the proton is so far off the Schwarzschild condition and the apparent trend of other organized matter in our Universe.
On the cosmological level, this highly turbulent structure of horizons where velocities approach C may be the source of matter creation through sheering of the spacetime manifold itself at the quantum level which predicts a continuous matter creation model at black hole horizons instead of the current Big Bang approach with its dark matter/dark energy allegories http://cosmologystatement.org/. Recent findings http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100318-black-holes-immaculate-conception/ not only confirm the existence of black holes prior to galactic formation but as well may eventually confirm matter creation processes near and at horizons, as in a continuous creation model, instead of the conventional accretion of particles and dust, the source of which has not been identified by the standard Big Bang model http://cosmologystatement.org
c) “The paper, while using some scientific terms, is presented at a very basic level…Nassim is merely playing with equations from student textbooks”
To this assertion I believe once again that Einstein said it most eloquently, “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” The Schwarzschild Proton paper could have been much more complex, as I had, with the collaboration of Dr. Rauscher and some discussions I’ve had with Dr. Rowlands :: http://theresonanceproject.org/uni/peter_rowlands.html, found multiple ways to go about it. For instance, in 2003 Dr. Rauscher and I elaborated a solution that comes to almost the same conclusions as the Schwarzschild Proton using QCD and QED. Further, Dr. Rowlands’ rewrite system (http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/6544.html) predicts as well singularity-like structures at the atomic scale.
The initial first drafts of the Schwarzschild Proton included many of these more advanced complexities; however my critics had already commented that my earlier papers were complex and too convoluted to make clear my approach. Furthermore, it was important to me for the Schwarzschild proton to be as clear and simple as possible, so that even a college level student could understand the mathematics and follow the logic to its conclusions. There was a certain beauty about this simplicity, and I purposefully stripped any complexities I could, and at the end of the day I may have gone a little bit too far with that idea. What I mean by that is that I could have put a little more beef around the arguments necessary for the reader to understand the approach I am taking and it is important to note that the current available version on the Internet was a draft copy that was not meant for publication. It was produced barely on time for the deadline for the CASYS conference while in the middle of touring during the summer of 2009. The paper will soon be updated as it is undergoing peer review and it was already asked of me to provide better references and to beef up certain sections.
One of the reasons the CASYS group thought of the merit of my paper to be worthy of an award is mostly likely because of my ongoing relationship with this group which has been following the development of my approach throughout the years and they could see the Schwarzschild Proton paper in the context of the other papers I have published.
In point #3, we find a more serious assertion about my alleged fraudulent nature. The gentleman proceeds to comment on an obscure and private discussion between myself and another researcher, Marko Rodin which is actually an illegal video as it was never approved for publication. Nowhere in any text or in any multimedia material do I ascertain the accuracy or the validity of this anecdotal discovery I was considering some years ago. If the accuracy of the relationship between the phi curve and the ninth division of a circle structure defined by Mr. Rodin’s mathematics had been fully explored and turned out to be valid, it would be interesting and I would have certainly proceeded in publishing or discussing it in public and so on. However, I did no such thing since I knew very well that the confirmation of the mathematics had not been done and since my interest has been fairly low and my time extremely busy, I had not been able to complete the proof. I actually made that quite clear in an email to a group of researchers in various fields that were inquiring about the approach I took to produce the spiral. A debate flared up and I had to immediately intervene as I was privy to the situation. My email to the group, sent on September 26, 2009, is as follows:
Dear Folks,
I am sorry if I inadvertently contributed to some confusion! I do not have the time to render the math for what I’ve done but the jepg’s and gif animation I created are self explanatory. It is important to realize that when I did this some 5 years ago I mentioned it to Marko in an anecdotal but interesting way. I did not do a full mathematical analysis. If someone is interested I would love to see it as there may be a deeper meaning to it or not.
So thank you again, Dr. Bob-a-thon, for having elucidated this calculation. However I’d like to add that as a first order approximation my finding was approximately 10% off, and a proper analysis would look at the relationship to the Fibonacci sequence, which approximates phi, as is found in nature, where 
is not found in nature as an exact representation. I’d love to hear the gentleman’s thoughts, as he may want to contribute more than criticism and character assassination. Whatever the case may be, to discredit all of my work because I may have had a thought in a private conversation with another researcher that may have been inaccurate or incomplete is inappropriate. In general, I attempt to find everything I can find on the matter before I make public statements that would mislead the population. Having that said, I am sure in the prolific amount of subjects I have studied, that extends from advanced physics to ancient civilization and anthropology, that I have most likely made errors that were not purposefully attempting to deceive. Many errors have been found in the body of work of some of the most prominent physicists and scientists on the planet which does not necessarily discredit their contribution to humanity as a whole. Furthermore, many things that are taught in universities today may be found to be completely incorrect tomorrow and that certainly wouldn’t make all the teachers purposefully attempting to deceive the students (although there is a certain tendency in many educators to skip over some of the difficulties that current theories may have in order to maintain an appearance of absolute truth).
In point #4: A question. 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?
Once again, the gentleman jumps to conclusions without having all the facts. Here are a few endorsements from prominent scientists (http://theresonanceproject.org/testimonials) who think that my approach has merit and that throughout the years have been collaborating and contributing to my knowledge base. Furthermore, as I provided links above (and there are more not provided here), other researchers with serious credentials are quickly coming to the same conclusions I have regarding the singular nature of the atomic world.
a) “because the scientific establishment are afraid of having all their precious theories overturned?”
To that statement, all I can say is that history speaks for itself as any new significant changes that were brought to the scientific community were typically largely resisted, ridiculed and then eventually accepted. As 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.” I would like to propose here that there is a movement, which I believe is unstoppable, that will eventually come to conclude that early interpretations of the quantum world were the result of the misunderstanding of the singular nature of atomic nuclei.
This change may take time and the period is directly related to the resistance of the current paradigm to this fundamental change in our view of the Universe. It is not a trivial change, and it is absolutely normal that there is great resistance as the current theories have done an excellent job for a long time. However, we have reached a moment where some of the fundamental issues such as the origin of mass, electromagnetism, spin, and certainly unification, etc. must be addressed.
As for the assertion from the gentleman that mentioned the typical argumentative and unfriendly nature of the scientific community, I believe that these attitudes are one of the most detrimental components to human evolution and transcendence of some of our most tremendous challenges. The scientific community, and certainly the world as a whole, must eventually come to learn that collaboration and constructive criticism always produce a better outcome for everyone than competition and warring, whether as name-calling or literally.
b) “because scientists are incapable of seeing outside the box that they were trained to think in, and are too proud to accept radical suggestion from an outsider?”
(c) because they haven’t come across his ideas yet?
(d) because anyone with an understanding of science can see that his claims and his methods are not scientific in any sense of the term, and that he doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about?
b), c) and d) are addressed by the answers above. However the gentleman mentions Garrett Lisi as an example of a renegade physicist being accepted by the mainstream scientific community. To this I would reply that Mr. Lisi published a set of equations that very much complements the current approach and as such, it is not a radical change in the perspective of the particle world – (although Mr. Lisi’s theory I believe has furthered a specific approach to particle physics, it has of lately been found to have some serious issues http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658). What’s interesting, however, is that once again it is some independent person, in this case a surfer dude living in a van (as I did for many years in order to finance my research) who came to advance the thinking of millions of professional scientists who get, in general, good salaries and can dedicate most of their time to research instead of survival. What does that tell us about the educational system and the current approach to advanced research?
In the case of someone bringing forth ideas that are much more radical, I would like to add this quote from this Associated Press article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7536665/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Less tolerance for renegades?
“…Maybe there is an Einstein out there today,” said Columbia University physicist Brian Greene, “but it would be a lot harder for him to be heard.” Especially considering what Einstein was proposing.
“The actual fabric of space and time curving? My God, what an idea!” Greene said at a recent gathering at the Aspen Institute. “It takes a certain type of person who will bang his head against the wall because you believe you’ll find the solution.”
Perhaps the best examples are the five scientific papers Einstein wrote in his “miracle year” of 1905. These “thought experiments” were pages of calculations signed and submitted to the prestigious journal Annalen der Physik by a virtual unknown. There were no footnotes or citations.
What might happen to such a submission today?
“We all get papers like those in the mail,” Greene said. “We put them in the crank file.”
Furthermore, comments are made below the gentleman’s article criticizing the fact that I have set up various programs and sales in a nonprofit foundation and that these activities are not typical of scientific researchers. Well, in order to eventually get out of my van and be able to continue doing advanced research, not only in theoretical physics but as well in technological developments, it was necessary for me to reach out for public support since I receive no financial support from large institutions or governmental structures. Therefore, I have had to divide my time between running an organization to produce resources necessary for ongoing research, the research itself and, of course, my family responsibilities. This has been most challenging and certainly has not put me in a position of great wealth to this day. The foundation struggles every month to make ends meet (especially in this economy), and my family is barely able to receive the financial support it needs.
Point #5. A similar question. How is it that none of his radical historical ideas have any support from any academic institutions either?
Most of the points given in #5 are also addressed above. This section is where the gentleman proclaims himself and his institution the beholder of the truth and the only truth as if the standard model was a complete and done deal. In the discussion below, confusion occurs because statements are made proclaiming that I encouraged acquaintances to learn specific math skills so that they may help. This does not mean that I don’t understand math or that my math skills are not good enough to do what I do. As mentioned in those comments, I am the first one to admit that I wish my mathematical capacity was much higher, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not good enough to do what I do with some of the help of others. Most physics projects today involve multiple physicists helping each other with various skills. I do understand enough math to write the papers I have written with the help of other researchers, however my extreme dyslexia has been a handicap for most of my life and as such this struggle is not so unusual in the scientific community as Einstein encountered it himself. I do encourage people that want to contribute to the research to learn the math skills necessary to understand the previous work that has been published and to be able to contribute useful and accurate suggestions.
Thereafter there is some discussion about how my work should be classified. There is no doubt that my work in the field of physics belongs in the box of physics and nowhere else. However, the whole of my research does not belong in any of the boxes available in the current mainstream community as it touches areas from advanced physics to philosophy and spiritual concepts and, as such, will never be placed in any conventional box as it is an all-encompassing holistic approach to existence – and nothing less. The gentleman is quite welcome to disagree with this unusual approach to science and philosophy; however, I would suggest in the future not only that his comments remain professionally based but even that his criticism be constructive and collaborative in nature as I can see that the gentleman has a great mind and a good knowledge base. Once again, we live at a critical time in history where we need to learn to collaborate and contribute to each other with mutual respect, no matter how widely divergent our opinions may be, in order to overcome many of the challenges we are facing today.
Absolute certainty that an idea is wrong…is an attitude that has no place in science and one that discredits the scientific enterprise. – Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate
Nassim Haramein
Research Director
The Resonance Project
