Nassim Haramein has discovered the Unified Theorey of Physics (???)

[Meager1]

"Could Elizabeth Rauscher involvement be for sake of corrupting his efforts because he is on to something?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Probably not. He must have known who he was getting involved with and what the circumstances were.

No one is "corrupted" who is not corruptible to begin with.  A persons integrity is really all one ever has, if there is no intregity then there is really nothing worth listening to because corruption will always be there, one way or the other, see what I mean?

>>>What better way to prevent someone from speaking their "truth" and revealing mysteries, than to infiltrate and divert?>>>>>

Here again you miss the point. No one is preventing him from speaking his truth, he is doing that quite well with the lectures and the tapes or so it seems. Isn`t it actually the opposite, that he is being helped to speak his truth? It is the choice of associates here though, that is the major point.

>>>Surely something this is something your familiar with Ark and Laura? SOTT in general have come under numerous attacks in this manner.

But what has been learned, is that if one is aware then one can defend, something Mr Haramein is most definitely missing is most valuable awareness.">>>>>>>>

He is missing much more than that. 
He has totally missed the hyper dimensional control aspect and who is behind most problems on this planet. His sun gods for instance, may not be benevolent creatures and may not, or ever have had our best interests in mind. If you are in any way familiar with the Cass material, you would already know this.

 

[Johnno]

Just tidied up your post Meager. You can quote as per the BCC code help page here.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?action=help;page=post#bbcref

If you haven't had much to do with code it can be a hassle. Have a play with it and preview to see what it does.

 

[anonymousoneuk]

Hello again!

I'm sorry but there is far too many replies directed than i have time to reply to on a point for point basis, however your information and perspectives are invaluable, thank you all!

I will keep my response concise.

The way i look at the situation is, Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher is the only real physicist involved with the project.

What better way could there be do prevent Nassim from discovering the true equations to express what he discovered geometric principles.

Another way to look at the funding was that he had funding and it was cut.

There could be any innumerable ways to perceive how or why he got funding in the first place.

It is as if to suggest that the powers that be have absolute control, if we immediately assume, that funding = completely incorrect and new age dis info scam.

His funding how now been cut and does the removal of his identity from Wikipedia not perk interest?

Personally i think it would not be a bad idea for Ark to get in contact with Nassim now that his funding has been cut.

He may not have realised the situation he is in or the situation of this multidimensional reality we exist in, but that's not to say he is incapable of realisation.

He has figured out how to geometrically contain infinity in a finite space.

Just as you need the right frame work in order to construct something, perhaps one needs to understand philosophical and geometric framework in order to conceive how something is constructed?

Peace :)

 

[snafu]

a great deal of detractors on Haramein here with very little actual evidence beyond your own speculations...arguments against Haramein include the fact that he seems well funded and is associated with this Elizabeth Rauscher woman whom you describe as sinister and tied to government agencies. Assuming these points are in fact true I fail to see how either discounts his theories, in fact I would argue that you are describing a good percentage of scientists in this country. What I'd much rather hear is an objective dissection of his theories pointing out the actual flaws as you see them because I for one find his work compelling (at least in the realm of physics, I haven't heard him speak on the other topics like the pyramids and religion, etc).

In my opinion the current theories of physics we have are flawed because they are predicated on other flawed theories so I welcome the approach of Haramein and others to throw alot of that out and start from scratch with a new way of looking at our universe. I'm not sure how many of you are physicists on this board, and I don't pretend to be one myself though I am no slouch at it either. The things that bother me about the traditional theories are probably not uncommon but I'll list them here and ask for your opinions on them:

1) different models for the micro versus the macro universe, does it not seem far more likely that there is a single law that governs both rather than two separate systems?
2) the universe is expanding and accelerating...if we've observed nothing else in our history one of the core principals is reciprocity, the idea of an equal and opposite reaction, a balancing force, a ying to the yang....its evident in all aspects of live, nature and science (spins/counter spins of atoms, magnetic fields, etc). Everything we observe spins and rotates too, doesnt it seem more likely that our universe rotates as well as Haramein suggests?
3) quantum physics is littered with these 'garbage' constants used to balance out equations, those have always struck me as a cop out....certainly I was never able to hand in a physics exam with my own personal cosntant invoked to balance out an equation so I fail to see why physicists get to do so. In my mind, if you cant balance the equation without using made up constructs then your theory is probably wrong, you need to start over.
4) as Haramein notes, we continue to find smaller and smaller particles that in turn make up smaller and smaller particles...the atom was so named because it was assumed to be indivisible but time and time again it goes further down, why do we naively assume that it is then finite? The same thing in the other direction, as we build more powerful telescopes we continue to discover that the universe is more massive than we previously imagined, galaxies within galaxies and universes within universes.

I guess ultimately what I'm saying is that we continue to come up with increasingly complicated theories built on top of one another to make the current model 'fit' when its very likely that the answer is actually much simpler and right under our noses. I don't know if Haramein is right, or even on the right track but what I like about him is that he has chosen a fresh path and I think that more than anything is what is needed to find a unified theory.

 

[Laura]

a great deal of detractors on Haramein here with very little actual evidence beyond your own speculations....... I fail to see how either discounts his theories, in fact I would argue that you are describing a good percentage of scientists in this country. What I'd much rather hear is an objective dissection of his theories pointing out the actual flaws as you see them because I for one find his work compelling (at least in the realm of physics, I haven't heard him speak on the other topics like the pyramids and religion, etc). ....

I glanced through the paper and then went to the Appendix. It is often a very good idea to start with the appendix, because whoever is the author, less attention is being paid to the appendix, because the deceiver would think: "who is gonna read the appendix anyway?" it is there to create a good impression.

So I went to the appendix, and after reading the first two paragraphs I was sure that this paper is

a) a fishing expedition
b) a disinfo
c) a joke

The mathematical nonsense telling that the paper was prepared by a well paid student is evident. Well, perhaps not a student, perhaps someone like Dan Winter with his credo: the public is too stupid to see the difference

It is a fishing expedition, because once in a while there is a catch sentence that should attract those who may know something about some open problem

It is disinfo, because it contains some truth but suggests a wrong path.

It is a joke, because I am sure someone was having a good laugh accepting the final version (I am sure there were several drafts)

Every specialist will know on first sight, looking into the appendix that it is a joke. But how many specialists will read it? Perhaps I am only the second one in the whole world. I would estimate there are ca 100-200 experts in these areas on the planet, those who on the first glance would know instantly.

If you would like a confirmation of what I said, find any theoretical physicist who knows group theory and show him the end of the first sentence of the third paragraph in the appendix:

"... SO3, the special orthogonal SU3 group."

Watch his face!

The point is that it takes one day to write a nonsensical paper. It takes one month for a real scientist to find out with a practical certainty that it is just that - nonsense.

These people are well aware of this fact and they use it, consciously or not.

The MIC is also taking the full advantage of it.

I was listening to a radio interview of Haramein. He was described as a "theoretical physicist", but he is not a theoretical physicist, for sure. Perhaps he has some fancy ideas, much like a boy. There are millions of such visionaries on the planet. The funny thing is that he likes to play with the "Star of David" and such things. He has no idea about the math, he says that Einstein's field equations are the most difficult stuff on the planet, while I was teaching these equations to my students, and they did not have problems with them!

I think he is just a smart kid that is being used. Instead of prompting him to get an education, they use him as a decoy.

See: http://arkadiusz-jadczyk.org/

http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/pm1.htm#I1

 

[Pierre]

I don't know if Haramein is right, or even on the right track but what I like about him is that he has chosen a fresh path and I think that more than anything is what is needed to find a unified theory.

What is needed more than anything to find a a unified theory is to be on the right track, fresh or not.

From Ark's analysis of Haramein's paper above, he seems to be very far away from any right track.

 

[snafu]

I don't see any actual retort to Haramein's theory on the sites you provided perhaps you can be more specific about what exactly it is you want me to read?

And well with all due respect to Mr. Jadczyk, that's exactly what I would expect someone in his position to say...he represents the established physics community and its a very hard thing to just come out and say that your life's work is based on a flawed model. Again, I'm not saying Haramein is right and Jadczyk is wrong or anything like that... in all likelihood the truth of the matter is that they are probably both ultimately wrong but that portions of their theories are correct or at least partially so. My argument here is that I thought that Haramein's model of the universe is intriguing and should not be discounted simply because it flies in the face of our currently 'accepted' theories. Don't forget, they mocked Copernicus and Einstein initially too ;)

I haven't watched all the videos by Haramein, I understand theres a 4 hour one where he gets into crop circles and similar nonsense, the video I watched was specific to his model of the universe and this is what I am interested in hearing arguments for or against. I'll keep checking back here to see if anyone posts anything beyond opinion and speculation

 

[Bernhard]

And well with all due respect to Mr. Jadczyk, that's exactly what I would expect someone in his position to say...he represents the established physics community...

Quite an assumption there. How many people in the "established physics community" do you know that incorporate the the material presented on here and cassiopaea.org?

Don't forget, they mocked Copernicus and Einstein initially too

Where is Haramein getting mocked publicly and viciously like Copernicus has been?
Seems to me he has not much opposition at all. I see more support from questionable sources than anything else.

I haven't watched all the videos by Haramein, I understand theres a 4 hour one where he gets into crop circles and similar nonsense

Why are crop circles nonsense?

, the video I watched was specific to his model of the universe and this is what I am interested in hearing arguments for or against. I'll keep checking back here to see if anyone posts anything beyond opinion and speculation

Isn't what you have written about Haramein's model and what you think you know about Ark's position in the "physics community" your own opinion and speculation? And weren't you first asking for other's opinions as well?:

The things that bother me about the traditional theories are probably not uncommon but I'll list them here and ask for your opinions on them

I'm no physicist either, so I can not scientifically prove or disprove of what Haramein has to say, but it seems to me there there is a load of other issues and problems this world faces before any UTP can even come close to be beneficial for humanity. What is "humanity" to begin with? Is everyone the same? Who are "we"?
Looking very closely and critical at the people behind Haramein and his backers is not something one should just dismiss easily. Just because his theory sounds "good" or is "refreshing" or going by the good ol' New Age slogan "Truth must be simple" (so people don't have to think much), doesn't mean he's on the right track.

It reminds me of what Mouravieff had to say about the misconceived "simplicity" of Esoteric Teachings. Maybe this could be related to Physics/Science as well:

It is generally accepted that nobody can go on to secondary school without having completed an elementary education. Nor can a person be admitted to a university without having a secondary education. These graduations automatically "select" those able to become active members of the cultural elite of human society.

Exactly the same is true in the esoteric Tradition.

However, in our modern world, we encounter a curious phenomenon. For example: we would not seek to discuss Newton's binomial theorem without having studied algebra, for without this, every opinion we expressed on the subject would be worthless.

Yet, in the esoteric field, we find a host of "experts" who declare their opinions on esotericism without having ever learned even the rudiments of this knowledge.

At the same time, some of them demand "simplicity" from esoteric teachings on the generally accepted principle that Truth itself must be simple. They conclude from this that access to Truth ought to likewise be simple. Then they assert that the methods to access Truth must be easily assimilable.

This argument would be perfectly correct if human beings and the problems they face were simple and just. However, that is not the case. There is a long road to travel from our state of distorted inner disorder to any "original simplicity."

In practice, the doctrine of "simplicity" - if regarded as an axiom - turns the student aside from the strait gate and the narrow way that leads to Life. Impelled by this counter-truth, he believes he stands before this door, when he is in reality - although undoubtedly in perfectly good faith - walking the wide path that leads to perdition, ad majorem Diaboli gloriam, of course.

The Doctrine of Simplicity, correct in itself, but wrongly interpreted, becomes a snare for hearts and minds that are already too corrupt; a danger which should be recognized and avoided.

Some people complain that the subject of the fundamentals of esotericism is not simple. Others have said that it leads to great clarity. This apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that esotericism is addressed to readers who are predisposed to esoteric culture by their nature, formation or personal experience.

It is difficult, if not impossible, for an esoterically unevolved person to discern false prophets spontaneously. He will recognize them more easily by their "fruits," by the observable results of their works, which serve as signs. The Tradition knows and teaches a whole Science of signs.

 

[spyraal]

Snafu, you have not introduced yourself properly so i can only make an assumption based on the writings of your two posts and assume that you are not a physicist. So you, like myself, you need to listen to other people's theories and form an opinion based on some general knowledge of physics and mostly intuition.

But when for example, we have a health problem we try to get the opinion of people who are specialized in medicine to resolve it. Other people's opinions are respected but they do not carry the same weight, do they? So if we apply a similar thinking to physics and even more so to a Unified Theory, your opinion (as mine for the same reason) might have little value and certainly not the same as a that of person who spent years of studing and a lot mental effort to master these concepts.

And it is you that say:

I haven't watched all the videos by Haramein, I understand theres a 4 hour one where he gets into crop circles and similar nonsense, the video I watched was specific to his model of the universe and this is what I am interested in hearing arguments for or against.

One of the ways to test any theory is to see if it is self-contradicting. You have somehow given a lot of credit to Haramein theories, but you have not even seen all of his videos yet! -let alone doing some more thorough reading- so as to see if they are internally consistent on their totality. How do you know that somewhere there he doesn't claim firmly that the moon is made of cheese? And what evidence you have about crop circles being nonsense or is that your intuition? And since Haramein refers to such "nonsense" why do you "buy" all the other stuff he claims? Isn't that fact troubling you as something contradicting?

I'll keep checking back here to see if anyone posts anything beyond opinion and speculation.

IMHO, I think both Ark Jadczyk and Haramein are speculating in their theories. But i suppose their speculations are a product of a methodical mental proceedure of trial and error, then pondering, learning and trying again. And if THEY are STILL speculating where does this leave you and me? My point is that you seem to want something more than "opinion and speculation" but without doing any work yourself. Why do you think you are effortlessly entitled to that knowledge (if it is there) or even more, why do you think that are going to understand and make an objective judgement of a UFT even if it was told to you? How can you value any arguement on a UFT without having some or -idealy- the same or better background as the one who proposes it?

The "problem" with opinion is that everyone has one. And it takes a lot of effort, study and work for our opinion to gain some specific weight. And it is very important human quality to be able to weight our own opinion objectively with the distortions of our ego. Just some thoughts.... :)

 

[Laura]

I don't see any actual retort to Haramein's theory on the sites you provided perhaps you can be more specific about what exactly it is you want me to read?

And well with all due respect to Mr. Jadczyk, that's exactly what I would expect someone in his position to say...he represents the established physics community and its a very hard thing to just come out and say that your life's work is based on a flawed model.

Obviously you did not read the material given at the links very well.

For being so darned incompetent and lackadaisical about reading and research, you sure do have some pretty aggressive opinions.

I think you are in the wrong bar.

Sayonara.

 

[Pierre]

I am interested in hearing arguments for or against.

Interested in discussion ? You sound more interested in promoting Haramein's theories, aren't you ?

Like anonymousinuk, that you certainly don't know at all, each message you posted in this forum is promoting Haramein, you didn't even introduce yourself, you didn't participe to any other thread.

I'm afraid you entered the wrong bar.

 

[anart]

I'll keep checking back here to see if anyone posts anything beyond opinion and speculation

Does this mean that you will actually post something other than opinion and speculation?  Thus far, that is all you have offered, with a hefty dose of 'attitude' that betrays your agenda on the matter.

In short, you come here, tell us that you don't know very much about physics and have not watched all the videos, yet your word is to be taken as more than opinions and speculation???  

Then, you fully disregard a studied evaluation by an expert in the field (who is anything but mainstream) and then saunter off, with your nose in the air about 'opinion and speculation'???

I mean, really - you could at least do better than that - when one posts on a web forum with a clear agenda, usually they at least do so with some sort of data to back them up so they aren't immediately dismissed... or, they drop in, tell the forum it is wrong and saunter away while throwing a stone or two on their way out.  Not much of an effort on your part, I'd say.

 

[domi]

I'll keep checking back here to see if anyone posts anything beyond opinion and speculation

Instead of waiting for somebody else to do the work for you why not roll up your sleeves, get your hands dirty and try to figure out why Mr Jadzcyk would be writing what he is writing.

Dig and discover. Here's a tool: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/

 

[snafu]

Obviously you did not read the material given at the links very well.

For being so darned incompetent and lackadaisical about reading and research, you sure do have some pretty aggressive opinions.

I think you are in the wrong bar.

Sayonara.

So being an admin gives you the right to flame a fellow seeker of knowledge? That seems pretty hypocritical to me but knock yourself out if it makes you feel important I guess. I'm not lackadaisical about reading or reasearch, if anything I'm the exact opposite and I find it incredibly insulting and presumptuous of you to say such a thing. You provided a link to this guy's homepage, nothing more. How about a little direction? Like 'check out this article in particular because of xyz', that would be the civil thing to do.

Snafu, you have not introduced yourself properly so i can only make an assumption based on the writings of your two posts and assume that you are not a physicist. So you, like myself, you need to listen to other people's theories and form an opinion based on some general knowledge of physics and mostly intuition.

I do not have a physics degree though I took several college level courses and was only a course or two away from a minor. I'm sure there are many on here who's knowledge in this area far exceeds my own which is why I signed up and started asking questions. It is a subject that has fascinated me my whole life. I have degrees in philosophy, computer science and education but I guess physics has always been a hobby that has been shaped by my work in these other fields. I consider myself well read and objective and able to understand the concepts though not all the math.

Interested in discussion ? You sound more interested in promoting Haramein's theories, aren't you ?

Like anonymousinuk, that you certainly don't know at all, each message you posted in this forum is promoting Haramein, you didn't even introduce yourself, you didn't participe to any other thread.

Not at all, I recently discovered Haramein and found alot of what he said compelling. So now I'm trying to research his work and see if any of it holds any water, searching online this was one of the first forums discussing it I discovered so I posted to the thread. Everything I read here on Haramein was negative so I'd like to know why.

I'm afraid you entered the wrong bar.

thats a cute quote, I seem to recall hearing that somewhere before. If you don't want me in your bar I'll leave, I certainly could care less for your opinion of me.

Does this mean that you will actually post something other than opinion and speculation?  Thus far, that is all you have offered, with a hefty dose of 'attitude' that betrays your agenda on the matter.

In short, you come here, tell us that you don't know very much about physics and have not watched all the videos, yet your word is to be taken as more than opinions and speculation???   Nutzoid

Then, you fully disregard a studied evaluation by an expert in the field (who is anything but mainstream) and then saunter off, with your nose in the air about 'opinion and speculation'???

I mean, really - you could at least do better than that - when one posts on a web forum with a clear agenda, usually they at least do so with some sort of data to back them up so they aren't immediately dismissed... or, they drop in, tell the forum it is wrong and saunter away while throwing a stone or two on their way out.  Not much of an effort on your part, I'd say.

I don't have an 'agenda' and any attitude you're detecting is misinterpretation on your part. Go back and read the posts before I chimed in, I don't see anyone posting anything other than speculation on his credibility based on him being well funded and linked to the purported sinister Rauscher. You are misunderstanding me, opinion and specualtion are fine, they are the foundation of scientific thought because they promote discourse, arguments and counter arguments and thats often how you uncover the truth! But I'd like to read something beyond character attacks on this man who (at least from my perspective) has some interesting ideas if nothing else, some of our greatest discoveries have come from people who flipped the problem on its head and took what at first seemed a backwards approach to the problem. So yes, speculate and argue for or against Haramein from a scientific perspective because I would love to hear it but all I've read here so far has been vague references and attacks on me. If I've offended folks I apologize, but I'm sort of short on time...see I have only a few months to live, maybe a year if all goes well :( So yes, it makes me even more impatient than normal and the medication makes it hard to concentrate and sometimes even difficult to stay awake. I came here seeking knowledge and direction but apparently that makes me lazy and suggests that I dont want to roll up my sleeves and do any work?...I aussure you all that nothing could be more untrue but could you give a few more details and direction to direct my studies? Certainly you don't have to but it seems an odd approach for a site that promotes knowledge and the free sharing of ideas.

I havent yet watched all his videos because from what I understand he goes off on a bunch of other subjects trying to tie his physics into religion, spirituality, etc etc, which while fascinting I'm sure, is not the thrust of what I am seeking. I'm sorry, you're  right that I should watch them all to form a full opinion.

I state my opinions here as a skeptic, I feel beyond a shadow of a doubt that our current model is flawed and on the wrong path. Harramein may not be the answer but then again maybe he is.

 

[Pierre]

I came here seeking knowledge and direction but apparently that makes me lazy and suggests that I dont want to roll up my sleeves and do any work?...I aussure you all that nothing could be more untrue but could you give a few more details and direction to direct my studies? Certainly you don't have to but it seems an odd approach for a site that promotes knowledge and the free sharing of ideas.

You can enquire about the first sentence of the third paragraph in the appendix of Haramein paper, so you can make an opinion by yourself about the legitimacy of Haramein work.

Quite easy, you call a couple of theorical physicists and you quote the paragraph.

So what is your objective ? To discover the truth about Haramein or to promote his work at any price ?

If you would like a confirmation of what I said, find any theoretical physicist who knows group theory and show him the end of the first sentence of the third paragraph in the appendix:

"... SO3, the special orthogonal SU3 group."

Watch his face!