Nassim Haramein - Beyond the Event Horizon

[shrunkensimon]

I was wondering if anyone here at this forum has watched the lecture by this man (Nassim), and is able to comment upon his theory, in relation to Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe theory.

Whilst it seems to me to be on the right track, so to speak, with its holographic principles and sacred geometry, i can't help but shake the feeling it is flawed at its foundation, because it relies too heavily on Einsteins work and the gravity driven paradigm/cosmological model.

I would really appreciate it if anyone who has seen lecture, could comment on it/what their opinion is. Thanks

Lecture by Nassim (first part, 1 of 2): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1256390335

[junglelord]

Just watching the start of the video. Thanks for that, its a very cool beginning.

[Steve Smith]

I think that his relationship to the Institute Of Noetic Sciences makes the whole thing suspect. But then I am a bitter, cynical atheist with no spiritual consciousness whatsoever. It reminds me of "the 'Secret'".

IONS Newsletter

The way to detemine if his approach is valid is to ask yourself, "what do I think of Deepak Chopra"?

Lynn Mctaggert's book, "The Field" will provide a backdrop to these ideas. While I found her arguments interesting and the experiments by PEAR and Dean Radin to be compelling, I am as skeptical as can be about theories that assign some deep mystical connection between the human animal and the universe.

[kevin]

Steve Smith,
Forgive me, but I had just been watching this clip, when I then read your post, if you put Marvins voice onto your sentences, they match?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4P3pvKmbsg
Kevin

[shrunkensimon]

Steve, i was hoping for a comparison between some of the ideas he puts forward, and Plasma Cosmology/EU theory.. rather than your opinion on why you think he is "suspect" because of his affiliation with "consciousness" type ideas.

Personally, that doesn't bother me. Whilst i can understand the reasons for trying to remain completely objective.. we don't live in an objective universe. Our experience is subjective. So to negate all aspects of spiritual experience and consciousness is to be robotic, as Kevin tried to imply. You either recognize the magic of existence, or you don't (because you've been too conditioned by education/left brain thinking).

I'd prefer comments on comparing EU theory to Nassims ideas please, and not opinions on why you think the universe is a stagnant random creation.

Thanks

[Steve Smith]

No, not the universe but the simple-minded ideas that occupy it are what are shrunken and stagnant. Quantum Physics is nonsensical and any theories built upon it are suspect. It is mathematicians and their fantasies. Black holes are not real. There are no such things as "event horizons". There are no "white holes". The reason that mystics are attracted to QED is that they are similar in approach.

Tell you what... if you want commentary then give me your understanding of what he is trying to tell you and then I'll respond to each point. You mistake lack of interest for lack of knowledge and that is an error of the first order. Here's some help with your research:

http://theresonanceproject.org/pdf/plasma_paper.pdf

This is my last post in this thread unless I see some meat.

[Steve Smith]

Marvin was at least not the vacuous twit that the other characters portrayed. Adams was my favorite author for awhile. His approach to reality was refreshing in that he tried to show the self-delusion that haunts humanity. If you notice Marvin's comments towards the others he is withering in his observations of their lunatic ideas.

[shrunkensimon]

Jeez whats your problem? I asked a very simple question, no need to get angry at me. If you don't want to comment, thats fine. Im just interested, as i said originally, in what people have to say about this guys theory in relation to EU/Plasma Cosmology, because, as i said originally, i get the impression it is fundamentally flawed.

I don't have time to read through 53 pages of something that does not resonate with me intuitively.. i did not watch the entire 8 hours of his lecture either, because it just didn't resonate with me.

Thats why im asking for others opinions on this guys theory..

[davesmith_au]

Giday Simon.

This chap Nassim Haramein was recently brought up on a private list, and whilst I haven't seen his video I went to his site for a look around.

Once I got past the pretty pictures I went to "Research", had a look at the first PDF Scale Unification – A Universal Scaling Law For Organized Matter... To me, anyone who uses the Schwartzchild solution to justify black holes (which is all of them) has an erroneous view of Schwartzchild's math.

Stephen J. Crothers http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/ has convincingly shown that not only does the Schwartzchild 'solution' not predict black holes, it actually precludes them. Contrary to popular belief black holes have never been imaged, seen, heard, felt, smelt, tasted nor invited over for cocktails...

Why do I believe Crothers has the math correct if I can't do the math myself? I've been witness to many of the communications between he and other scientists regarding his stance on the matter and not once has any of his detractors been able to show where his math is incorrect - because it isn't. As usual with many proponents of the Standard Model, (and many of the so-called alternatives), there was much chest-beating and armwaving, denigrating and ad-hominem attacks, but when challenged to give even one mathematical or technical reason for their stance none is forthcoming.

One of them even went so far as to admit Crothers was correct, but said he wouldn't change his 'belief' in black holes regardless. If that's not dogmatic and unscientific, I don't know what is.

Neither EU nor PC require the existence of black holes, and you'll find most if not all proponents of EU are unconvinced that they exist at all. And many scientists talk of plasma without having any understanding of Plasma Cosmology. From what I've seen of his website and his work, I don't see any compatability with EU/PC at all.

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[Plasmatic]

By the way , aside from certain folks on the forum who have ideas that have nothing to do with the published works of E.U. "sacred Goemetry "and "Holographic " whatever has nothing to do with E.U. as in published works.

[AndyM]

I think you guy's should read his physics papers.....

Firstly although although his global thesis is way out there he has been careful to formulate his idea's in terms which will get him a hearing in the physics community - so when he talks about cosmology he does so in terms of Einstein's Field Equations and Swartchild's Solutions however he states very clearly that these need to be amended because they take no account of torsion/rotation. As he points out these equations were calculated from a fixed view point on the rotating body so they missed lots of energy - I guess hi calculations will show that the amount missing will directly account for dark matter/energy.

He then proposes that the universe is fractal in nature with the cut off points for the fractals being event horizons of White/Blackholes - a white hole being the radiating part of the black hole - i.e. quaser, sun, atom. He demonstrates that their is a scaling law linking all sizes of blackholes from mini plank length black holes to atoms, planets, suns etc. etc. Thus the vacuum is a black holes and we live on the inside of a blackhole and the radiating electromagnetic energy we see is the energy radiating from these White/Black Holes.

His equations for this descriptions are the plasma dynamics of energy surrounding these white/black holes so his theory is basically a plasma/electric universe theory as his math scale from the electron up - he is saying exactly what EU theorists are saying - Look at the Universe. Look at the Plasma Dynamics, Look at the scaling.......

Here are some really interesting facts which come out of his presentation - Waves in space in 3D and they rotate, hence a wave form is rotational and encloses a volume or "Quantum" of space hence the wave naturally gives rise to a particle type effect.

There is only really one force which is fluid like flow of waves inwards as gravity and outwards as electromagnetic energy governed by plasma fluid dynamics rotating around black holes.

Space is all pervading and in direct contact hence instant communication between all of space (black hole centers) segmented by event horizons of spherical waves (the smallest of which would be the planks length).

Again this makes total sense because a plank length is denoted as the minimum resolution measurable by a light wave before the energy level creates a black hole. If you can imagine this as the wave length becoming so short that it forms a circle with the spherically rotating portion of the wave and therefore have zero forward momentum. In this case the energy would be absorbed into the plank length blackhole and then radiated as electromagnetic radiation. Apparantly there have been some results in collidors of fireballs exhibiting black hole characteristics!!!!

The best thing about his theory is that it is massively intuitive and really takes us back to newtonian type mechanics and provides a unified theory of matter - it also shows us that are conceptions of black holes are wrong in that the vacuum has a massive energy density and is therefore full not empty. because we live in it much as a fish lives in water we don't notice it, and if we could cross a black hole event horizon we would be in empty space... or in a sea of vacuum energy!!!!

I suggest a very close analysis of this because so far as I have seen this is the best, simplest and most intuitive theory I have seen but it also seems to take account of and include aspects of other theories which have lots of merit E/U for example.

Finally it also includes conciousness as the energy feedback loop between the expansion and contraction of energy - even things like ESP would be explained by the information flowing within the blackholes in the body. Like it or not any theory which proposes to be worthwhile has to include a this within it.

Finally the best thing about NH is that he points out some dazzling stupid errors in the natural laws -

E.G. Energy Conservation - requires and isolated system - which is impossiblity unless you include the whole universe
Entropy - the Universe is clearly organised and becomes more organised - how would we, cars, boats, planets form other wise - I've always thought this was a blindingly dumb law but as NH says Chaoes theory proves that by looking at any disordered system at a high resolution order appears

And way I suggest several readings of his papers, at least 2-3 viewings of his video - So far as I can tell his physics makes total and utter sense

I'd be interested in everyone else's opinion but please, please take a carful look before coming to a conclusion otherwise its to easy to get tricked by your internal paradigm....which is why current physics is in such a rut.

Happy Hunting


Andy

[junglelord]

I watched all of it. I remember having the same gut feeling the rest of the guys had on his black hole addition to his model.
I remember it was about four hours if I am not mistaken. It was a good journey in many ways.
I think on a gut level a lot of what he say is 100% valid, however as so many have done, he has mixed in blackholes.
This kills it for everyone here. I can seperate it and go for relationships at my own depth of perception and personal perspective.

I remember having a discussion with the author of Vortex Singularity. I agreed with his work, minus the black hole derivaties. I think that there is a lot of merit in many points of view when you take the time to see which ones have some relationships that agree dispite the dissimilar or distastefull aspects. However human consciousness being what it is, a lot of people throw out the baby with the bath water. Many consider mix and match to be muddy water and apples and oranges, and it can be that for sure. It is possible though to have a relationship model that is supported by all these individual insights. I am truly of the belief that there is mulitple ways to see it properly.

I am also of the belief that some fundamentally good insights are poisoned by black hole peer pressure and the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.

[freewheeling]

I find the physics theories coherent and falsifiable, which is good. The historical analysis, however, is quite "eccentric" (or outright delusional), and I also have a problem with the fact that he simply plagiarizes Buckminster Fuller to such a degree that it's jaw-dropping, right down to presenting stories from Fuller's childhood, as well as well-known writings and anecdotes from Fuller's life and works, as his own. The latter could also be a manifestation of delusion? I can't think of any "normal" reason he'd be doing that. It certainly lends no additional credibility or legitimacy to his theories. Next, what are his educational bonafides? He doesn't even list an undergrad institution, let alone any post-grad training in physics or anything else. That's clearly why he chose to coauthor with a PhD from UC Berkeley.

Finally, I'm not very familiar with physics journals, but was the peer review of his coauthored articles at an "A" level? If not his ideas probably won't get much traction even if they have merit.

[GaryN]

Hi freewheeling, just came upon your post while doing a site search. Good to see another (I assume) Bucky admirer, welcome.
I did a search of Harameins site, and NO results on Fuller, so that tells me all I need to know. I won't be watching his video!
As far as his qualifications, well, I never did have much respect for formal education. One of the reasons I liked Bucky when I first read his story, was that he had been thrown out of some well respected institutions. I never went to university, but I was "asked to leave" quite a few classes in school and college for questioning some of the teachers abilities. Einstein didn't think much of academia.

Numerous are the academic chairs, but rare are wise and noble teachers.

[The Pilgrim]

I did a search of Harameins site, and NO results on Fuller, so that tells me all I need to know. I won't be watching his video!

ironically, if you had watched the video you could've saved yourself the search: Nassim not only mentions Fuller, but gives him full credit for the isotropic vector matrix which is at the centre (pun) of Nassim's theories.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... mein&hl=en
at about the 1:33 mark he begins to talk about the IVM.

Next, what are his educational bonafides? He doesn't even list an undergrad institution, let alone any post-grad training in physics or anything else. That's clearly why he chose to coauthor with a PhD from UC Berkeley.

He admits as much in his presentations, though needing help with t he math end of his theories shouldn't in and of itself invalidate his work, should it?

Finally, I'm not very familiar with physics journals, but was the peer review of his coauthored articles at an "A" level?

outside of the Noetic Press, the only other journal I've found that has to date published his work is CHAOS, which is a fairly reputable journal, but the problem is that his paper (I believe it was his paper on "spin") was buried on page 380 or something. you would think a discovery of this sort would be a cover story in the physics world.

It reminds me of "the 'Secret'".

As above, so below--as within, so without.

OOOOHHHHMMMMM