Nassim Haramein: genius or fraud? Flaws in theory.

[IJesusChrist]

Allusion, I respect you a great deal - you are one of the posters that I read the entire post, no matter how long. I've told you that plenty of times and I think by now it is starting to get to your head.

When I replied in this thread, I was talking about this thread; I had no carry on from any other threads.

But... again you fail to explain anything at all. You are being very much like Nassim; talk a lot, sound like you are saying something, but really nothing constructive is being done [in this thread].

I appreciated the videos - and in all honesty I went in the videos wanting to believe. At first I got caught up in some minor details of his explanations, as you pointed out, but I got over that and went for the "whole message".

The whole message is very pleasing to hear, it is very hopeful for the human race, the mind, consciousness, what have you. But if the basis of his talk is completely farce, how can I accept it? He is a very good philosophical speaker, his mind is very free and unconditioned by academy, and where that helps him in his ability to think of novel ideas, it hurts him in that he cannot fully connect his ideas to actual science. Not only does he not connect them to science, he attempts to in a wrong fashion. How can I follow that speech with any hope that he is some kind of genius who has figured everything out? If he cannot ground his ideas in the known, or at worst, grounds them under false pretenses, how am I to accept this?

How am I to even say other people should accept this? From everything that I know is real, he is preaching things that are not. And that I have a problem with.

Every time I speak to you directly, you flare up. You attack me and attempt to say I am a blind man, who is ignorant of so much and that you are a teacher. I think the problem here is that you are putting yourself on a pedastle to me, believing that you have nothing to gain from me. I say nothing about sacred geometry, fractals, astrology, or some type of mysticism and you despise me for that.

I can understand that, to some degree, but to simply get mad at every post I make without confronting it until you have to and then exploding on impact, do you see no problem with this? With you?

With all the teachings and preaching you give around here, and especially on to me, belittling me, you really need to have some introspection.

Do you question anything you say? Do you question what people you initially agree with say?

Just settle down before you respond.

 

[ophiuchus]

look FORGET NASSIM. whether he is right or not makes little difference in the grand scheme, because every scientist that ever contributed to the foundation of science has been WRONG. new theories emerge and disprove old ones. that's science. nassim may be different, but im not discussing it anymore because i don't care anymore. i merely wanted to present his view of things, which are of unity, and an attempt at trying to get the type a to consider a new possibility.

i already told you i am not talking about it anymore, nothing that i have said after the post where i said "i am no longer posting in this thread" is about the topic of Nassim.

Every time I speak to you directly, you flare up. You attack me and attempt to say I am a blind man, who is ignorant of so much and that you are a teacher. I think the problem here is that you are putting yourself on a pedastle to me, believing that you have nothing to gain from me. I say nothing about sacred geometry, fractals, astrology, or some type of mysticism and you despise me for that.

I can understand that, to some degree, but to simply get mad at every post I make without confronting it until you have to and then exploding on impact, do you see no problem with this? With you?

i don't get mad that you address me directly, and in no way was i "mad" when i wrote any of that, nor do i despise you for anything, which i have stated countless times... you don't have to believe me, but it's true. what i DID do, was call you out on 1. your fabrications. the most recent example being that i have never claimed myself to be a teacher. (in fact it was you who mentioned something about me being my own best teacher, i've said nothing of teaching).i love to learn and share, that's it. 2. your inability thus far to quote someone properly. 3. and on your lies, which you are still making, btw. ^^^ it's been "everything" and "nothing" with you, and we all know that's bullshit.

"Every time I speak" "I say nothing about" "Do you question anything" "at every post I make" "completely farce" "Not only does he not connect them" "in a wrong fashion" "figured everything out?" "yet to ever, once respond to any of my questions" "You do not explain anything"

and the coup de gras:

because i stated the well observed fact (by scientists) that "all of science is inherently flawed" with the statement

all of science is based on a fundamental misunderstanding

you reply:

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

that's solely from this topic.

do you not see that you are (nearly...) the only one who posts in this fashion? i don't do this to (most) other people because they stay within the realm of what they know. do you not see that anytime you stay within the realm of what you know, that i am not critical of you? im being genuine when i ask this, because anytime we do have a disagreement, it's always "you never do this" or "you always do that", so i cannot know for sure what you think. the fact of the matter is, it's just not true. i am not out to get anyone.

 

[IJesusChrist]

because every scientist that ever contributed to the foundation of science has been WRONG.

I just can't take this seriously.

You have a flawed view of science.

The foundation of science is the study of the quantifiable. In reality there are many things that are quantifiable, regular, predictable, and patterned - science sets out to make hypothesis of what can be described, and then tests those hypotheses.

Science, is not reality. Science is a portion of reality, just like spirituality. They both have their place and you can't deny one because ... whatever reason you have for that.

 

[ophiuchus]

I just can't take this seriously.

nothing.

You have a flawed view of science.

everything.

do you see that point?

The foundation of science is the study of the quantifiable. In reality there are many things that are quantifiable, regular, predictable, and patterned - science sets out to make hypothesis of what can be described, and then tests those hypotheses.

Science, is not reality. Science is a portion of reality, just like spirituality. They both have their place and you can't deny one because ... whatever reason you have for that.

the third times a charm i hope. i agree. IM NOT DENYING SCIENCE. just that, by definition, it is open to improvement and change, which we agree on. and so, when something new fits better (like all of the theories we have now), then we have discovered just how inaccurate (WRONG) the old theories that were replaced, were. it's a simple concept really. it just has to be admitted that science cannot fully describe the whole system, which you already did, in saying that "it is a portion of reality".

i think perhaps you just have a flawed view of me

 

[maxfreakout]

i might take nassim, or his followers, a bit seriously if only they would stop lying about his achievements, if a person has to make up lies about being published in a peer review journal just to convince people to listen to him, then he probably isnt saying anything worth listening to, Haramein is a prime example of this, you still havent provided any evidence that this man has been properly published by an academic journal despite being repeatedly asked to

 

[IJesusChrist]

idk man

"every scientist who has ever contributed anything to science is wrong"

That sentence is basically what you are poking me for...

I think we're both burnt out on this discussion. If you don't go bashing science as "wrong", I won't go bashing astrology or other ungrounded, yet holistic approaches.

but yeah... I'm burnt on this discussion, I've got nothing else to say.

 

[ophiuchus]

"every scientist who has ever contributed anything to science is wrong"

I think we're both burnt out on this discussion. If you don't go bashing science as "wrong", I won't go bashing astrology or other ungrounded, yet holistic approaches.

i am a bit burnt out on it as well, but i have one thing left, maybe this can shed some light on it. first of all, that's not a real quote from me. ill show you where the misunderstanding between you and i lies, which can be found from that "quote". it's in the tense. you seem to think that i am implying that: because everything that has been a foundation of what we have now, has been proven wrong, that i think that the foundation we are setting now, is wrong.

this is the fundamental point. what is new, is here because it works, so it cannot be "wrong". i've never once said that science is wrong... once something new comes along that works better and makes more sense, then the new theory shows how the old theory has become more "wrong" than the new. the new theory, when compared to the old theory, clearly shows how it is more right than the old. these is just using observation.

there is no imperial right or wrong. i believe that right and wrong may easily change states given time and consciousness.

 

[IJesusChrist]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/roll-over-eins ... 37846.html

:lol: :roll:

 

[lucidmagus]

Nassim Haramein is a crank. But this will really blow your mind - so are most physicists since Bohr and Heisienberg! Theoretical physics since the 1920s has been a comedy of errors and has been built on logical impossibilities and mathematical fudges. The Standard Model, as it stands, cannot even account for gravity or relativity! If you want some cutting edge theory that actually makes sense, check out Miles Mathis. He's the only one who has developed a model that actually holds up to scrutiny. But it will probably be about 60+ years before it is accepted by the mainstream. His website is here:

Homepage for Miles Mathis science site

 

[noomclub]

Can some one help me about words สล็อต?