This is a reply to the general criticisms and attempted character assassinations the anonymous blogger “Bob-a-thon” has been perpetuating across the universe.
Please go here for my response http://theresonanceproject.org/bob-a-thon.This is an important study for anyone who is interested in my work. It’s not personal to whoever Bob-a-thon is. It is a difficulty encountered for anyone who has new ideas and creative ways of addressing complex problems in science in general. It is crucial that the reader take the time to click on every link and study the issues carefully.
I would like as well to thank all of the supporters that have been out there in the field battling these issues and although I have not directly participated, I am indeed paying attention to them and I am grateful for your support. Our task is to continue to move forward and extend a hand of compassion for our world as a whole.
Thank you,
Nassim Haramein
Director of Research
The Resonance Project Foundation
I hope I’ll be permitted a few words in response here. You can always use them as a teaching aid if you like.I can’t help feeling that I’ve been caricatured and simply turned into an ‘important study for anyone who’s interested in my work’ rather than actually responded to. It’s a little unsettling to find your work has been turned into what seems like a propaganda tool. Is that an unfair term to use?The rhetoric is great, but I’m struggling to find any actual content here. There’s lots of fantasy – especially regarding who you think I am. Am I really a “reactionary defending the status quo”, who “proclaims himself and his institution the beholder of the truth and the only truth as if the standard model was complete and a done deal.” I don’t think I even mention the standard model. Or an ‘institution’. Where does it all come from?Take the first sentence… I’ve never said anything about any “mathematical topological problems”, have I? And the third sentence… “defending against all odds the status quo” – what odds? Do you mean evidence? Aren’t you the one heading up an organisation that has no evidence to support any of its ideas and proclaims its own version of truth in contradiction to the vast evidence base of science?It’s quite remarkable. That’s just the first three sentences. It would take me years to go through this. But it all looks very nice, so I guess you win.Regarding your request to help you out with your Fibonacci spiral – my suggestion would be that you draw one out on a piece of squared paper, using a compass, and measure the distances between the start of the spiral and the centre of each of the circles, and compare that distance with the equivalent distance in Rodin’s diagram to see if there is any cosmic connection. If you want a more mathematical approach, you can use Pythagoras’ formula. I’m sorry to hear that none of your team have been able to figure this out for you during the last six years. If you’re interested, I know some 12-year-olds who would be very happy to help you solve this.Nassim, look, we have a brilliant opportunity here to all work together to create a world in which everyone is able to freely proclaim their own version of science to the public without having pesky individuals stand up and say “no, you’ve done that all wrong” and explain why. Sure, nobody likes a smart-arse, and nobody likes to see disagreement… but seriously, I really don’t think this is something to fight for – do you? Don’t you think science should be about actually finding out how the world is, rather than the freedom to make it up and not be criticised when you get it wrong?You have some nice ideas, but they run contrary to what we already know about the world. Not from textbooks and people brainwashing each other as you seem to want everyone to believe, but from thousands of real, dedicated seekers after truth, working together over the centuries to actually find out what it’s like. It’s unfortunate that you feel you can dismiss this, and anyone who cares to defend it.Dealing with criticism by asserting that the person criticising you is unable to recognise your genius is a very weak argument. The reason it’s weak is because it can be used with equal effectiveness by the snake-oil pusher and by the pioneer.I know you want everyone to see you as the brilliant maverick and me as representing the grey, institutionalised, dogmatic mainstream. Which is why you’ve compared yourself to Einstein not once but five times in a single piece of text.But who’s actually got the institution to defend – is it me or you? Who’s actually preaching their own dogma and dismissing other people’s actual experience – is it me or you? And who is doing the immature name-calling – is it me or you?Anyway, I hope some debate is sparked by all this, and that it doesn’t just result in an triumphalist round of defensiveness, prejudice and self-congratulation. I’ll watch with interest.Best regards,Bobathon
From the nature of your response, Bobathon, it is clear to us that you are not interested in generative, positive and constructive discussions. Haramein did respond to many of your criticisms and has never referred to himself as a genius or compared himself to Einstein. Some of us have been working here for a lengthy amount of time and have never heard anything of this sort. In fact if you read carefully in his response you will find this statement, “I actually don’t believe in mediocre minds, as I consider that everyone is born brilliant…”Furthermore in reply to your assertion that Haramein resorted to name-calling, note that Haramein never called you any derogatory names; your caricature and pseudonyms are of your own making, all Haramein does is point out their meaning. And it is he who was singled out and targeted not in a rigorous, professional scientific debate between two colleagues or researchers, but in a mean-spirited, anonymous, personal and very public attack, calling him a ‘fraud’ among other things, all across the internet.In our comment to your blog, we asked you to put his reply as a link in the main body of your posts and you have chosen not to do so. Furthermore for you to say that there is no content in Haramein’s replies shows that there is obviously zero willingness to examine the issues in a professional, non-biased approach.If you’d like to change your tone, come out from behind the pseudonyms, and like any other professional or good scientist, consider thoroughly all the evidence that has been provided as it takes some study, we’d be receptive to further cogent dialog. Until then, we are not interested in further comments. Thanks again for the opportunity to further explain a theory we believe has merit and is worthy of further investigation.Sincerely,The Resonance Project Foundation Administration
Resonance Project,This is a response and elaboration to the ongoing debate with the “gentleman” above. I think anyone who has followed the dialog here has realized that the “gentleman” above finds your theories and the way you present them so outrageous that he’s resorted to attacking you personally and professionally. Frankly I find the whole conversation silly and very counterproductive, as well as enlightening and thought provoking. It’s has for me, renewed my interest in your work, for good and for bad. I do have a question for Nassim and his team @ the Resonance Project that I’d like to ask, a question that really needs to be answered for myself and many others interested in the content here.This Bob-a-thon character has spent a lot of time and energy fiercely attacking your motives as well as your science. Personally I think this was more of a play for attention than an actually an attempt at an intelligent debate. However, the catalyst for his outburst is rooted in the same questions that many of us have. I’d like to ask this question, and I would also appreciate a response as well.Peer ReviewWhen can we expect some kind of peer review from a legitimate scientific establishment? Whats the status of the papers in the scientific community? Besides the best paper award for The Schwarzschild Proton, there is virtually nothing else out there for laypeople, like me, to verify any of the science. This is not a slam or an attack on the work here, I find the concepts fascinating and I am always thirsty for more. The problem I run into when spreading the information to others is the lack of peer review, the absence of any scientific contrast or opinion, positive or negative. There seems to be zero interest in the scientific community to even touch any of this. I’m sure you considered arXiv or some other independent physics journals out there, why haven’t I seen anything out there?I realize that Nassim is not a product of the establishment and therefore doesn’t get the time of day out there, but surely with the amount of work and apparent solid math, isn’t there anyone out there willing to review and report? I think the answers to these types of questions are very important to The Resonance Project supporter base because with out us, well we’d like to keep you in business!In conclusion, the main goals behind this post is to make it very clear that we support open, positive and constructive debates within the community that follows The Resonance Project, and to ask for more dialog about the peer review process. The Bob-a-thon critique method is destructive, condescending and obviously brings down the level of professionalism attached to this organization. We 100 percent condemn it.However, In order to maintain the legitimacy and to continue to vigorously support and learn from the project, more updates about peer review processes need to be shared. For us laypeople, we really need to know how accurate the material is and how it is being accepted by other physicists, for good for for worse.Thank you for the open forum, and namaste.Man has an intense desire for assured knowledge.-Albert Einstein
Thank you for your comment, Dan.There are many issues related to publishing in peer review journals, and last year Haramein wrote a rebuttal to various comments that were flying around the Internet. Part of that document addresses these issues. However, we did not make this document public but only directed inquiries to it at the time. Here is the link http://theresonanceproject.org/for-the-record. Please note that his latest paper, The Schwarzschild Proton, is currently awaiting publishing in a mainstream scientific journal and should be available in that form by the fall.
The positive result of Bob-a-thon’s comments is that it provoked a detailed response from Nassim that will greatly assist those who need further clarification or technical explanation.Bob-a-thon sadly is one of many who voice strong opinions over the internet but who do not have the courage to sign their own name. They are all to be ignored.Dominick Gibino
Hello. I’m not pretending to follow the “bob-a-thon” situation, but I can comment on the very aggressive commenting I often see left on Youtube videos of Nassim. The vitriol and venom I often see left by those claiming to have a background and/or interest in science is really very alarming and makes the authors appear frighteningly narrow minded.To react with such aversion to someone who presents an alternative view makes one appear very small. It also reflects very poorly on the scientific community, making them akin to those who threatened other thinkers of the past, thus crippling mankind’s progress.One might almost think these comments were actually left by members of Nassim’s camp because they only serve to portray the skeptics as rigid, dull and completely unable to see beyond that which is written in a science textbook – which by the way, are the most expensive textbooks for schools because they are constantly changing.The comments also make individuals who keep an open mind even more interested in Nassim’s work because all of the great thinkers of the past have been met with this kind of opposition.
Thank you for the quick response about the peer review process. The situation that Haramein finds himself in was an expected one, but I’m excited to hear that something could be published as early as the fall. Keep us posted!I wanted to also say that I read a very interesting paper by Erik Verlinde about how gravity doesn’t exist. Verlinde is a legendary sting theory physicist(which ironically hanging on by a thread), but the viewpoint of this paper is very intriguing. It presents a holographic scenario for the emergence of space and describes the origin of gravity and inertia, which I assume is synonymous or associated with spin/angular momentum. He argues that this idea invalidates certain aspects of string theory and gravity, and in fact concludes that strings are emergent from something as well.I can’t help but read this and think how it trends toward Nassim’s outlook on the way nature works. It’s exciting to hear that a prominent figure in physics is drifting into new ways of looking at gravity and it’s origins. I don’t know if I will get a response to this, but it’s worth a shot. Has Nassim read this paper, and what does he think about it? Could he explain in better detail about what exactly Verlinde is saying here and how it relates to his own work? I wonder if this could be a linchpin that Nassim could swing around his work to the mainstream. I’m very excited about this, are you?
Hello everyone,Many thanks for providing such great information on your site. I have been reading through this blog and I must say that I a bit confused by the always-occurring and pointless debates that involve insults.. I sometime only wish that we could speak in numbers, instead of words. I find that there is no need to defend oneself ideas from the general public. It is indeed useful to maintain an open conversation with specialists, because they are on the same edge of research as you, and, because once we make public a theory we must also stand by it as it is being scrutinized in a scientific and constructive manner.The reality is that regardless if a theory is correct or not, most likely humankind will continue its trajectory – known or intuitively known only to those who understand inertia, hence, to attack a theory or/and its author is counterproductive from many points of view. If only we would look at new theories as part of our human culture of “trial and error”, then maybe…we would not be so impulsive as to attack.The most obvious and overwhelmingly present example of such counterproductive-ness is the ongoing battle between religious views and believers, when we all argue and counter-argue on the basis of a total and complete unknown. Only fools could have an argument and not know what they are actually arguing about.In science, the trial and error process is crucial, hence, when someone tries something – regardless of the outcome – he/she must be celebrated for that trial. The error belongs only the the one who is trying, as a measurement tool of the trial’s effectiveness.All of this being said, thank you Mr. Haramein for all of of your “trials” and making them public. I thoroughly enjoyed your online lectures and your work, more so as it is similar in essence to my research, although different in form.Best wishes, and I look forward to more information from you. It would actually be useful if this blog would see the participation of other people also involved with your research..and creating a conversational atmosphere, in a Socratic sense.
With regards to Bobathon ,to me ,if someone is going to attack a persons character in a public forum without having the gumption to put his own name to it ,shows a definate lack of intestinal fortitude and as shuch should be ignored,or at the very least be treated with the contempt and distain warranted with such an individual who`s own character is so obviously lacking.(I hope I’ll be permitted a few words in response here. You can always use them as a teaching aid if you like).Ego is a worrysome thing when not kept in check, sorry, what`s your name again?
Nasim, we love you very much. Thanks for keeping positive and pushing hard. Our team looks forward to learning more about the universe from you!Pierre
Wow, nice rebuttal by Nassim. He took the time to answer not only Bob-a-thon, but, indirectly, all those who use these methods of name calling, character assassination, and every other dirty trick of second rate debate! Truth seekers everywhere can use this as an example of how to manage these angry sorts: point out the tactic, then counter the criticism (or answer the question) with fact, and then drop it and waste not an additional iota of time on it. And nice discovery of what Bob-a-thon means in the urban dictionary. LOL!!
[It's all about the SPIN]HA HA GREAT work in the new torsion field physics Nassim! Not so greatwith the negative media spin Bobathon!!!
Science and logic both human activities that require a faith, a mysticism and a philosophy and a metaphysics.The original driver of logic is winning an argument, ways of shutting up an opponent. It was part of the standard greek debating system and developed over years into an effective argumentation system, hopefully avoiding the use of weapons of a physical nature. Therefore Ad hominem has always been a effective element of logic.However the rest of the logical system is hardly ever used in argumentation because it is too technical.I find the appeal to verification through peer review therefore no more valid than safety in numbers.However, an appeal to my own experience and my own reasoning ability is always persuasive, but like everything else subjective and consequently partial.For example the Maxwell equations as currently taught exclude a vast amount of Maxwell’s personal philosophy and metaphysics that guided him in formulating them. Dirac”s equations when he first formulated them lead to the idea of anti matter and were consequently initially modified by peer review.What Nassim is saying is new, but it is as old as the hills too. When we are done learning it we will say, but the Chinese philosopher’s and the Sumeriamn Magi and the Dravidian peoples knew this!Cultural Arrogance runs at all levels, and blinkers all vision. The western scientific model is not the truth, it is a utilitarian model of great value, but it is only a model.When a newer version of software is brought to market we do not all change to the new, saying the old is better, and we do not cobble together the old with the new in case the new causes damage to the old.This idea is attributed to Jesus, in case you wondered. For some that makes it the truth! it is a pretty accurate observation though that is still relevant after all these years.Science is schizoid. It promotes the individual and his experimental evidence but denies his personal belief system which supports his efforts ususally. Those who attempt to make science or religion their philosophy, have to deal with the metaphysical consequences of their choice. The way they deal with this is analogous, there fore there is often a direct similitude between religious and scientific formulations of “our reality”.It therefore makes little sense to adopt absolutist language or exclusive terminology, because everyone will interpret how they want to interpret. It makes more sense to show openly how one does the experiments and thinks the attendant thoughts and concludes the intermediate conclusions, so observers can copy, modify or reject as they see fit.As far as i can tell this is what Nassim et al( the very important et al) are attempting to do.
Whether or not Haramein’s equations stand up to peer review, it seems to me that only one person in this debate is putting his actual name, and thereby reputation, on the line, and clearly that is not the anonymous Mr. “Bob-a-thon.”
If this claimed ‘science teacher’ is so certain that Haramein is scamming all of us, then let him take off his mask and put HIS name and face on the line. Otherwise, nobody should even give his criticisms and accusations the time of day. Haramein is the one here who is demonstrating IMMENSE COURAGE in bringing forth such radically new ideas about our Reality. Maybe he will wind up being mistaken about some or all of his concepts. So what? At least he’s HAVING concepts that challenge conventional thinking. How is the notion that our Universe exists INSIDE A BLACK HOLE any more radical or crazy than String Theory or (ahem) “Brane Theory.” The latter one, I’ll have anyone know, was pulled completely out of some physicist’s nether regions without the slightest shred of evidence to back it up, but because it completely avoids any mention of ‘God’ or ‘Consciousness’ or any other form of SUBJECTIVE existence, there are countless physicists lining up to try to prove it somehow. Preposterous!
Haramein’s only crime here is to suggest that Objectivity requires Subjectivity to be in the mix in order for Reality to come into being. There is a natural resistance from the scientific community to any and all hypotheses which give any credibility to any subjective existence beyond the measurable limits of biological life, presumably based upon the notion that if it cannot be detected, then it cannot exist. However, this prejudice does not extend to PHYSICAL existences that are just as speculative as those which are formless, such as ‘spiritual’ things, or Consciousness, or the generally supernatural. This is why serious consideration is granted completely imaginary things such as humongous Branes undulating somewhere outside our Universe, creating ‘big bangs’ simply by bumping into one another. The plain and simple fact that it is a PHYSICAL cause for the Big Bang, regardless of the complete lack of evidence, is enough to cause legions of scientists to submit funding requests in order to spend countless hours coming up with useless calculations attempting to prove the musings of pure imagination.
Yet propose that the cause of our Universe is any sort of FORMLESS existence, and suddenly you’re a ‘fraud’ catering to the fancies of New Agers and followers of Hindu philosophies, etc. This is nothing to do with ‘bad science’ and everything to do with HUMAN EGOS. Even Quantum Mechanics shows us an ‘observer’ (Awareness) is required in order for the wavefunction to collapse into localized physical reality. In other words, the physical world cannot manifest absent some sort of CONSCIOUS PRESENCE to be AWARE of same. Without that crucial ingredient, existence remains in wave state (formless) versus particle state (matter).
Most cutting edge physicists all now agree that a ‘bottom-up’ Universe (existence out of nothingness) is impossible. The only alternative then is a ‘top-down’ Universe; infinite divisions out of a Singular Wholeness of Infinite Existence. The human brain is not wired to perceive nonlinear existence. It is wired to perceive distinctions of Duality. Our brains are like 3-D glasses. Without them, our Consciousness would not be able to distinguish ‘this’ from ‘that,’ and everything would blend together, much like the fuzzy picture we see when looking at 3-D movies without the proper interface of the glasses.
Infinity is its own proof of Nonduality as the default state of Reality. Existence cannot be truly infinite if there is also true separation between objects. All things within an ‘infinite’ container must therefore also be part of and connected forever to said Infinity. It is only then the APPEARANCE of separateness which has us fooled, and this is the function of Space-Time, to act as an invisible SPACER to give us the ILLUSION of SEPARATION from our innate Oneness with All Existence.
Haramein is absolutely on the money in his focusing on the SPACE as the real target of study. Because if the vacuum where truly ‘empty,’ then no separation would or could be possible. All matter would immediately snap together in a gigantic clump of SINGULARITY, down to the quantum level, wiping out ALL possible distinction/duality.
And the root cause of all this MUST BE CONSCIOUSNESS. For why else would an incontestably SINGULAR and INFINITE existence arbitrarily separate itself into distinctions of Form and Formless alike? The only possible answer is TO KNOW ITSELF for What It Is. And It would have to be Conscious in order to do that.
Dear Everyone
I’m Graham, a 51 year old layman from the British Isles. No agenda, nothing to attack or defend etc
Loved “The Schwarzschild Proton”. I am sure there is truth in that article; and the other stuff I read here.
What I am missing most here is people offering the possibility that they may be wrong but stating that they believe their avenue of study to be interesting enough to deserve further work. Here’s an abridged version of my own hypothesis. This may be completely wrong but I find the idea compelling enough to continue studying it and tentatively promulgating it. Thoughts on a postcard, please.
*We have three dimensions of translational freedom
* At least three degrees of rotational freedom
* Time is a rotation rather than a translation; the period of this rotation is the Planck time. There is only this Planck moment. Our perception of ‘time’ is an entropic evolution of the Planck moment
* There is a level of reality at which the concepts of time and space become irrelevant and meaningless; whether this level can be used as a conduit for information transfer between distinct Planck moments I doubt; however, I suspect it may act as a conduit of information between all spaces in the current Planck moment
* Said level is the means by which matter communicates its state of momentum to other matter; this communication therefore takes place in one Planck moment. (cf van Flandern vs Carlip on “The Speed of Gravity”)
* There is little if any exchange of energy between matter at this level; the exchange is of information; the impulsive effort arises within fermions or the fermion-like processes inside nucleons and mesons
* The mass of a particle is the interaction of the binding forces within nucleons and said level; likewise the inertia, momentum and gravitational transception. Strong Nuclear and Gravitation are different sides of the same coin.
* Current art indicates that the gravitational field has two components; one static component related to quantity of mass and another dynamic component related to its velocity. As v increases, the intensity of this dynamic component also increases
* At speeds much higher than those which we usually encounter in astronomy the dynamic component becomes very significant
* Newton’s “inanimate brute matter” does not exist; matter is at its core incredibly active and it is this internal activity which may provide an important missing ingredient in our understanding of nature.
To recap:
It is the arrangement of spinning nuclear components which provides the acceleration associated with gravitation; the mass fields provide information about how much mass there is, where it is right now and its state of motion via a holographic structured field.
I tend to favour the “smoke ring” toroidal model of fermions; a pressure gradient arises as a result of the poloidal rotation of a point of high energy density. Identifying the source of this energy lies somewhere in the future, if it should be identified at all. But that doesn’t matter right now…
In a single-proton universe said nuclear components possess zero momentum and no preferred alignment within a hypothetical 3D sphere, the surface of which is traced out by the toroidal axes of rotation of the fermion-like processes within the proton;
as we accelerate our proton to the speed of light this sphere becomes first oblate then tends towards circular in a plane orthogonal to the direction of travel as the proton nears c. In other words,these posited toroidal axes are restricted into two cones which are parallel to the direction of travel; the angle subtended by these cones is inversely proportional to v
Inertia can be described as the external energy or impulse required to restrict or change the degree of freedom of the fermions within our proton; when this external energy is removed the proton will not relax back into its original state but will persist in its new state of motion until another impulse is applied to it. For a brief moment we experience this change of momentum as a resistance.
It is therefore possible that we can engineer matter itself in such a way that it
* moves without the need for a reaction motor; the action/reaction takes place at the fermion-spacetime interface
* no longer responds as strongly to external gravitational fields; it has its own state of inertia which we can modify to provide rotation and translation as we wish
But that’s just me. Sadly I am a duffer at mathematics (slyly comparing myself to Einstein there : ) so no equations to support my wild hypothesis.
I must take a look at Verlinde. I also think Frank Znidarsic may have some truths to add, although some of the popularizations contain a glaring error in the simple math which calculates the mechanical-acoustic transmission speed within a nucleus.
If anyone can convincingly rip this hypothesis to bits I will be relieved, if anything. Have at it : )
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly
-Albert Einstein writing in defense of Bertrand Russell.
I watch your lecture repeatedly, Nassim, as much as I can at home and at work. It brings me hope that perhpas humanity is on the cusp of finding the key to the universe that has eluded us since the inception of time and the beginning of evolution. If even a portion of what you say turns out to be accurate you’ll be one of the greatest humans to walk the earth this century. Keep up the good work! I’m glad somebody out there is doing it while I’m stuck behind my desk 9 to 5.
RESPECT MON!!
-Thundercock
I am a student from Australia and wish to reply to Dr Bobathon.
Dr B, you must understand that the majority of scientific mainstream will NEVER accept that matter and energy have a conscious base. They hold that consciousness is a recent phenomena specific to humans. If ABSOLUTE proof of a conscious base was demonstrated tomorrow–which is as impossible as putting your thoughts into your hand, then all physics departments in universities would become Metaphysics departments (Quantum mechanics is their version of Metaphysics). Physics has reached its logical conclusion–the Planks length and there is 99.999% left!!! These guys are TRULY scared to have their carers end at the hands of a conscious revolution that they will never publish anything to perpetuate that. How many people would terminate their carer, income, reputation, social rank, etc etc for the sake of truth??? You must understand that this goes deep into personal insecurities that have nothing to do with science at all. Some of them, like Amit Gotswami, Fred Allan Wolf, Thomas Campbell and John Haegelin have changed over, but the majority will not succumb until someone starts levitating 100-ton stones in front of them. A conscious base is the only point from which to infer how AUTOMATIC systems work–like our solar system or our bodies. Spontaneous self organization of brain-dead matter without conscious organization is a probabilistic impossibility. The table of elements will never organize themselves into anything resembling what we see today without direction? The organs in your body do not run themselves–the subconscious runs them. If you were killed instantly–your organs stop instantly. Your body does not do anything–your subconscious does all the doing. You see, consciousness UNDERWRITES matter. Consciousness lives in the abstract domain as does geometry. The table of elements is a table of automatons (robotic slaves) that we call atoms and their function is determined by their geometric shape along with their physical property. Atoms do not “think” as we do. They do not have free will. They function according to their shape first, then according to their physical properties . The saying that: “form follows function” actually means that: “form underwrites function” or function is subject to form. Can a poorly shaped knife function properly? of course not. Shape is the primary consideration of function–not the other way around. The two are in fact complimentary, and therefore, co-requisites of one another but geometry is a the primary consideration for the building of anything tangible–we always build with a blue-print in mind. I know this is counter-intuitive but it will, in time, become accepted. Nasseim has nailed the basic geometry from which to move forward but it will require that the mainstream swallow some humble pie.
I would love to carry this conversation further so please reply.
Response to Dr. Bob-a-thon,
Hello, Im from Argentina, I apologize because my English is not very good, but wanted to give my undying support Nassim, I’m not scientific or understand much about it, I discovered Nassim for videos of his lectures on Youtube, and from that now I have slowly begun to understand many things.
forever seek explanations for everything, because we were taught never formed me, I have read from books of philosophy Buddhists until we understand the Shamanic trying which is what is wrong in our history, I believe and support at this point that Nassim one profersor “as well teach, be taught to doubt what he has taught “so that students can deduce for themselves every teaching, which I admire most is that Nassim is brave and refreshing, shows us another possibility, explains and demonstrates not this evil that dude, because thanks to their teachers Nassim doubt discovered a new science, but if this judge so bad, the past is the past theories, and thanks to the great changes and as Nassim dudarores is that we have evolved but personally I think in some respects we have been backwards.
Dont now how my post on google translate translator, I hope you understand.
Nassim you are so spetia and please continues to teach your wonderful things that allow us to doubt, perhaps because of it appear more likely to find out what the truth about our universe.
Good luck
Luz Espeche
Argentina
luzespeche@gmail.com
Response to Dr. Bob-a-thon,
Hello, Im from Argentina, I apologize because my English is not very good, but wanted to give my undying support Nassim, I’m not scientific or understand much about it, I discovered Nassim for videos of his lectures on Youtube, and from that now I have slowly begun to understand many things.
forever seek explanations for everything, because we were taught never formed me, I have read from books of philosophy Buddhists until we understand the Shamanic trying which is what is wrong in our history, I believe and support at this point that Nassim one profersor “as well teach, be taught to doubt what he has taught “so that students can deduce for themselves every teaching, which I admire most is that Nassim is brave and refreshing, shows us another possibility, explains and demonstrates not this evil that dude, because thanks to their teachers Nassim doubt discovered a new science, but if this judge so bad, the past is the past theories, and thanks to the great changes and as Nassim dudarores is that we have evolved but personally I think in some respects we have been backwards.
Dont now how my post on google translate translator, I hope you understand.
Nassim you are so wonderful and please continues to teaching me your wonderful investigations that allow us to doubt, perhaps because of it appear more likely to find out what the truth about our universe.
Good luck
Luz Espeche
Argentina
luzespeche@gmail.com
Oh it is a warrior trying to verbaly beat off Haramein Nassim,i mean this figure
Bob a-thon,sound like a woman too me,lol. Well male or female,i can tell that “the world” that also include me,since i am many atoms,lol, Means that Nassim Haramein is the closest thing to heaven that me and my atoms can be since i am stranded on earth. If it wasent for his sencerity to find answsears to questions we would still belive in thoose vicious “lies” and interpretations of the last centuary,wich has confused me too a lot.Now with Harameins science and knowledge,that i buy,cause it feels right for me,as a spiritual beeing with a lot of unexplained self experienced events that the matematics and the earlier scientists have kept silenced about. So that we should feel crazy and awkward all alone.
Thanks to people like him who is inclusive and warm and funny and genourouse with his knowledge,he acctually makes the worl SMILE and feels HAPPY. And si it is.Because he is the best.Good weekend to all.
Dear Nassim,
What an outstanding contribution you have made to the world of science. True you are standing on the shoulders of the enlightened ancients but to arrive at what you have arrived at against the backdrop of a scientific community that has been on mass barking up the wrong tree for the better part of the last century, is breath-taking. As an earth scientist i have been applying the principles of sacred geometry to mapping groundwater and other mineral occurrences since 2005. Before that i was lucky enough to befriend former Chief Hydrogeologist from the Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in Rome who in 2002 opened my eyes to the use of triangles and the angles 120 and 60 degrees as an indicator of groundwater prospectivity… even in hard rocks that other hydrogeologists might otherwise dismiss as dry and barren. Clearly the work of Nassim is the bridge between Western and Eastern scientific traditions. Realising that the search for the fundamental particle was leading nowhere, except the development of the atomic bomb, it was time to understand how so much energy could possibly be locked stably inside an atom. I am not sure where bob-a-thon or other gray men studied but vectors are vectors and once a perfectly equilibrium structure can accommodate near-infinite energy irrespective of scale. It is understandable Bob that this stuff is not easy to grasp. If it was it would have been arrived at sooner in the West. But it has already been decoded long ago by those in the East, in particular the Chinese and King Wen sequence of 64 Hexagrams. I think the best think you can do for yourself Bob is to enrol in a free 10-day Vipasana meditation retreat in your local area and give yourself the opportunity to experience the emerging, the peaking and the passing away of every sensation until you realise that every moment is made up of a beginning, a middle and an end and that this moment you describe has a length of time equal to zero, and that somehow everything still manages to fit within time length of zero… and then meditate on water, the structure of water, meditate on the fact that water is a polar molecule and that water in crystal forms takes the form of a hexagram and do some research and discover that the hexagram is the most stable structure of our metallic iron core, and then gradually it will likely come to you Bob that water can be in three places at the one time. And when you realise that, you will realise what your students in school need to learn more than any lesson of all, which is that water can be in three places at once, and that putting water to work is the action of an enlightened being, and that it is water that ignites the seed of life and that water attracts water (the law of attraction) and then you will help yourself and your local community to build core resilience against the climate and economic shocks that the atomic minded man has created for all creatures on this earth to now clean up. Two final points for your consideration.
1… on the 11th May 2011 there was an earthquake in Japan. little reported in the media but easily accessible via reputable sources is that on that day Earth, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Mercury lined up in a straight line (1st time since 1910)… but of course our science majors will insist that earthquakes are the product of internal forces only… independent of girations through the wider cosmos… even girations witin our small solar family.
2… Roseanne Barr is running for President of the United States of America and i encourage any of you who have not yet seen it, then please check out the following interview from last Saturday 1st October, 2011.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXYAKJ5ZHzw
Thanks Nassim and the Resonance Project Community.
Yours respectfully
Kimberley
(in Townsville, Australia)
I think that Nassim’s ideas are fascinating and I welcome them. I am student of mathematics and have myself experienced some anger from professors when I tried to go out of the box on some topics. So I decided to keep my mouth shut, at least until graduations. My question for the Resonance project is following: would you be able to make available your math work in detail? I am interested to see how you derived equations. Even if you could make this aa a brochure in printed format I would be willing to purchase it, no matter the cost. Thanks!
To be brief here, I have been thinking, calculating, always questioning since childhood. I am an engineer ( IT ). MY IMAGINATION GOES ON FOREVER ON REDUCTIONISM, HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE, and now Nassim’s work for 2+ years.
So an important thought came up as bob-o-thon was bloviating on this blog.
I got much of that hubris from university professors. They don’t encourage “real” questions, that may be “out of the box”. The education system is broken, I believe we all know.
To keep this brief; my son, when about 9 years of age, sitting at the kitchen table having light conversation with me, suddenly asked; Dad, how many times can I divide a drop of water until I cannot divide it anymore. Being me, He stopped me in awe. This question is to soon I thought. Still I went into the chemistry for a while, and told him that that was a great question.
He told his science teacher the same question the next day. The science teacher said, “that is a stupid question”…. Don’t worry, I took care of it.
My point? The school and educational institutions are designed to repeat the “corporate line” prepare workers for industry and create consumers.
We must all do our questioning of everything and create. thanx, Nassim
Dear Scott – loved your stuff you said above (and like to exchange with you). It is most noteworthy to understand Awareness more closely. It does that by itself (there is no me to be found…) in Observance, but our Ignorance (a precise term for what we call ‘me, I’) must give space to it. How is this being done? Vipassana Dhamma of the Buddha, as well as Islam, to cite just 2, have precise and scientific instructions on how to go about it. Release from Ignorance is a reality unveiled from Ignorance (delusion, sanskrit: maya, does not let us see our ignorance). We must be very thankful for Mr. Bob by unconsciously taking on the role to point this out. He certainly has a point (he does it in this rabid way which is common to materialists who feel incensed that their futile Ownership of Knowledge lacks) and: Thankfulness is key – ! I live in the Sahara: It is common knowledge here that we all originate from the Black Whole. Its mater(mother)iality (m from ‘E=mc2′) being the Womb of the Mother (arab. ‘Rahma’, also meaning compassion), its spirituality being the Whole (engl. term derived from ‘Allah’, like the words holy, healing (making whole), and also hole, hall, halo, hola! or hello, etc.), of Whom is said: Bismillahi Rahman ar-Rahim (e.g. the Most High, All-compassionate, All-merciful). We are all fractals of the Being (arab. ‘Allah’, E from E=mc2). So we have ignorance (and the suffering coming out of it), insight, and compassion coming out of it, and gratefulness, and grace. It is at our fingertips at all moments day and night. See to it (the process of Observation becoming aware of it, c2 from ‘E=mc2′)! Let us walk about enlightened on this Earth! Each of us IS the whole universe (Coran). Haramain is right. Therefore we all have to put the Heart before the mind. Distractors and assailants manifest only as part of Our ignorance (remember: the law of resonance) to challenge AND support our steadfast purification process to final Union (of the Heart over mind). This is the practice of all religions. Of African initiation science. Love.
Fascinating read so far. I’ve only spent the last ten minutes or so quickly digesting some of the underlaying concepts presented in the logical manner here. I think, and forgive me if I am incorrect, that when getting to this level of understanding – there is at times, an insufficient factor with conventional communication standards traditionally used be it verbiage or bleeding edge mechanics – hence the evolution of systematic process especially in this arena.
I find it unfortunate that some as mr. Thon, endeavor to hide and throw negative energy at ideas birthed in the positive creative process with all or most information given to peers not in the light of ego, but a shared hope given apparently from again, passionate positive thoughts laid bare. I cannot see anyone of high intellect (those that create, not simply memorize systems of what others have created and hide behind that apparent aptitude) – disparage the creative process. Negative forces do not create, they are the antithesis to progress – on many levels.
I have not watched or read the presentations/proofs as of yet, however upon first gleam of premise, I have to say it fits with my mind’s eye in terms of Multiverse function as the event horizon field has everything to do with the frequencies of time on so many levels – matter the direct relative toward perception.
The negativity makes me think of the artist and the Turing method. One cannot breathe progress without the other. It would seem when stagnant, part of a balance is lost, some instead of seeking those pieces would rather keep the divide from a recess of their own.
It is a good thing indeed that there cannot be an “intellectual bully” at the highest points, that is too base of real self understanding or interaction by measure. When someone is guilty of an interaction that generally comes out from the subconscious. Ironic Mr. Thon accuses of “pretending”, but is in fact, the one hiding.
I’m looking forward to learning more of the presentation and encourage the creativity. Sometimes a good thought sparks more of the like, branches and all.
It’s funny how I got here. I strated my quest doing research on the problems of gravity and have been studying independantly the theories of Strings, Multiverses, Parallel Universes, Super Semetry, Membranes, Big Bang and Expansion, ect. I came across Nassim’s work and was obviously intrigued. What’s facinating to me is the fact that I have been mildly entertaining the ancient astronaut theory and doing research that I thought was totally different then the theoretical research yhat I’ve been doing. You could imagine my astonishment we I saw how Nassim so eloquently fused the two. Anyway I had some questions and I wanted to find a scientific rebuttle to Nassim’s theories and I thought what better way then to go to a blog where they call Nassim a fraud. (UP-hosted by BoB) I figured I’d know right away what the important points were that would send me on my way to do more research. I looked at his points and checked them. I did this a few times and still colud not find any legitamit arguments dispelling Nassim’s claims!
Anyway IMO you should be thankind bob because anyone who goes to his blog looking for the “truth” will eventually end up here!! I was unsure and now thanks to bob I’m on board!! By the way, when I asked him a couple of questions about Hawking Radiation and the fact that most physicist’s agree that QM has made leaps and bounds for society but is very incomplete he lost his mind. That’s what drove me away. I could only get scientific responses like “hippie bullshit” and othe condesending remarks. Check his blogs from 12/15 and you’ll see how he falls apart. Anyway Thanx alot Nassim! I’ll be folowing closely. Let me know how to spread the word and I will!
To think, all this time I was looking for the answers to the universe and all this time it was on utube…LOL. Seriously, that’s where I found it. Thanx again Nassim!!
Hello again. I don’t know that it matters but the identity of “Bob” was revealed on his blog by a person who didn’t appreciate his ranting and mean spirited criticism of Nassim. He was told that if he erased the comment then he might find HIS name all over the internet. I don’t beleive in revenge but I do beleive in karma. Maybe Bob’s employer might not be so happy if they knew the unprofessional and unscientifical language’s he continues to use under the cowardly guise of annonimity. It’s troubling to me that “bob” is a molder of future physicist’s and that his rhetoric can be so spiteful and childish yet he can hold a teaching position at a school in England. Maybe this post will convince Robert Dickerson who teaches A-Level Physics at a University and is supposedly friends with Prof. Brian Cox, will learn to engauge in professional, scientific debates without resorting to calling someone a “fraud” and putting so much energy into trashing someone across the internet while hiding and not having to be held accountable for his remarks. I’m not a scientist but one thing I know to be true in physics is that “for every action, there is an equal and opposite re-action”. Now let’s put (him) this behind us so we can move forward with respectful, factual debates which is the basis for scientific discovery. He has since removed the revealing post but we know who you are Robert. Now knock it off. The world has enough cowards. Thanks again Nassim. Karma.
Dears Nassim and Elizabeth:
I am not a physician but a Mechanical Engineer and I found your job very serious, and also want to remark that bobathon still hasn´t understood the nature of physics.
He says: “by quoting a vacuum energy density as if it has a physical significance”.
Lets suppose we have got a capacitor, and that this capacitor has two sheets of metal, and that there is vacuum between the two sheets. You can calculate the energy per volume from the vacuum in a capacitor from:
Energy=(epsilon0*E^2)/2 ; where epsilon0 is the dielectric constant of the vacuum and E is the Electric Field.
He has confounded the vacuum with the “nothingness”.
Is there an energy between the two sheets?: There should be a mass too!!!
Regards:
Alejandro L. de la Barra.
Having read about 99.999999% of the previous posts, I see that this open letter to a “bob-a-thon” guy has become more of a forum for the reader to postulate ones own theories/ideas concerning the secrets of the ‘universe’.
So…Ah, but first. How rude of me. Nassim, my warmest congradulations on pissing off so many stuffed windbags. Or should I say inflated vacuum bags. Your ideas, though not entirely original(as you admit/demonstrate)are presented in a most enjoyable and relatively(pun)easy -for-the-layman(me)format. Your presentations not only reveal that you know your math, but even more importantly, that you grok what you are talking about.
To paraphrase Shakespeare, to grok or not to grok; that is the key, not the question.
I can only speak from the prespective of my own black hole, but I have found, from the many trips outside of my ‘normal’ event horizon, the space/vacuum you speak of, which has in the past been refered to as the aether, is not only as dense as you postulate, but this aether is(and everything else for that matter)conscious. I am saying the universe is conscious(ness).
Our brain is not only the most marvelous computer, but is also a radio, able to tune into different frequencies, enabling one to listen/see outside of the ‘normal’ event horizon. But you already know/grok that. I thought I’d throw that in for the benefit of others and to assure you that you are not alone in the ‘big’ universe.
From reading the other posts here, I get the impression that some people aren’t getting your main points. For instance, the bit on the scaling graph. You have put the us(the observer)at the center. How can it possibly be otherwise?DUH! Or should I say DOH!(apologies, Homer) This math shows/proves so much.
If the universe is expanding out to infinity in all directions, then it follows that whether I am on the Earth or on Mars, I am the center of that universe . And to carry that idea to the next logical step…if it is true for me and you at the same moment, and I am on Mars and you are on the Earth, well it’s just ‘dot’ simple.