Nassim Haramein answers his critics

On July 2, 2010 Nassim Haramein answered some of his critics with respect and logic on his daily
blog. His Ideas on physics and supernatural problems are worth a look for any researchers looking for
possible answers. We are posting Nassims post in its entirety below. You can visit his website
at http://www.theresonanceproject.org/

Letter to Dr. Bob-a-thon,

I wanted to start with thanking Dr. Bob-a-thon for his efforts in elucidating some of the mathematical
topological problems I hadnt had time or interest to address. I typically avoid wasting my time participating in
these so-called debunking sessions. However, as I can see that the gentleman has invested substantial
efforts in this particular example, and because it is such a prime and typical expression of the reactionary
tendencies defending against all odds the status quo and proclaiming it as the truth, I feel obligated to
reply.
Id like to clarify however that these tendencies are usually found at a certain level of scientific development
which typically includes professors at college level that do an excellent job at regurgitating previously
accredited work, but dont necessarily understand the process of discovering new science, and certainly new
physics, in this case. This process, unlike what is described in the gentlemans comments below his article,
is a process of creative thinking and application that determine the adequacy of the fundamental concepts of
a theory prior to the notability typically associated with previously established theories. I am sorry, but the
true scientific process does not include personal attacks, character assassinations and name-calling.
Although these methods are commonly found in todays scientific communities, they are certainly not an
appropriate way to conduct science or to conduct oneself as a professional in any field of expertise. New
ideas that may seem completely alien to a current approach indeed may become the standard of tomorrow.
In certain spheres of physics, and I assure you, theyre not so common, creative thoughts and concepts that
are far from the standard view are encouraged and dialoged. How else could science evolve? However from
a certain perspective, the new thoughts or the unusual approach appears as a slap in the face to the current
popular and accepted theories. In the case of unification theory, it is even more dramatic, as many physicists
across the globe agree, it is clear after almost 100 years of searching, that a significant change most likely is
necessary either to the field equations, or to quantum theory, or even to both, in order to reconcile
fundamental issues that have been plaguing physics for over a century.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics) And as we will see below, these
problems are non-trivial (and I mean that in a mathematical reasoning sense)!
As such, most of these creative ideas, as seen throughout history, typically come from outside, independent
thinkers who blindside the academic institutions: Einstein being the most famous example, as he published
what were considered to be extremely controversial views at the time, while working as a third class clerk at
the Burn patent office. The same man later authored, while recollecting the difficulties he encountered in
publishing and getting acceptance for his ideas: Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition
from mediocre minds.
I actually dont believe in mediocre minds, as I consider that everyone is born brilliant but that certain life
experiences and difficulties can reduce ones capacity to access deeper levels of awareness that are
necessary for creative and fundamental reflection. Here the inhibitors are constraints resulting from a style of
education in which what is taught is proclaimed as the truth and the only truth, and where students are
discouraged and severely reprimanded if they tend to wander in the awful world of untruth as predetermined
by the Obvious Truth Holder. This type of attitude engenders these typical remarks from the gentleman
who is the Obvious Truth Holder:
The reason I want to debunk him is because hes wrong. I teach physics and maths to students, and I think
its important to let them know when something is wrong. Its important to be able to tell truth from falsehood
if we dont, then we lose sight of truth altogether.
Remarkable! It reminds me of this example from an elementary school teacher. This attitude is most likely
what Einstein was pointing at when he stated, The only thing that interferes with my learning is my
education.
I have been participating in multi-disciplinary physics conferences for some 15 years, and as a child, I
commonly co-moderated discussion groups and group therapy sessions with my father, as he elaborated
new concepts of education and contributed to his colleague Jean Piagets famous work on child
development, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget

Further, I have taught thousands of people throughout my time both in the ski and climbing industries and
some 20 years of giving lectures and seminars. I have learned a few things throughout these years and one
of them is that truth is a moving target. The truths of today were once untruths, and the untruths of today
may become the truth of tomorrow. So Dr. Bob-a-thon, do not fear losing sight of the truth, as what you have
found in the standard model is a partial truth and certainly an incomplete model and should be taught as
such.
But this is not about analysis of the downfalls of our current educational system, but about a rectification of
the facts which the gentleman accuses me of overlooking and of jumping to conclusions without having
investigated completely. Yet, and as is typical with this type of attack, the gentleman himself, in his first
assertion of proof of my fraudulent activity (thinking new thoughts), is the one that distorts facts and jumps to
conclusions without thorough investigation.
In his point #1, the first and second paragraph clearly attempt to discredit the validity of the CASYS09
Conference because of the gentlemans unfamiliarity with this event and insinuates that the postings on my
website mislead people to believe that it was an award given for all of physics where it is made clear that the
award was given to The Schwarzschild Proton paper for the section of the CASYS09 Conference in the field
of Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation which took place at the University
of Liege in Belgium. http://www2.ulg.ac.be/mathgen/CHAOS/
Furthermore, it is clear that the gentleman didnt take the time to go and investigate the program timetable to
examine the other papers that my paper was competing against as he didnt seem to know how many were
submitted in this particular section. The gentleman is correct in asserting that not so many papers would be
found there (approximately 20) as not many people in this world have either the capacity to work at this level,
or the leisure to find the time to do in depth investigation of extremely difficult problems that were found
insurmountable by some of the greatest thinkers in our history.
The papers that were submitted this year were of very high quality from researchers from a wide international
community and very reputable institutions. This is nothing unusual for the CASYS Conference physics
section, as previous years have seen Nobel Prize Laureates participate, such as in CASYS07 where I
presented as well. As such, I was quite surprised to find my paper winning the Best Paper Award as it was
competing against veteran physicists and researchers, including papers from the director of the conference
himself. How much did the selection committee know about physics? I dont know. However, the quality of
the physics papers that have been submitted certainly demands that the reviewers have some fairly
advanced understanding of physics to be able to even comprehend any of it. It wasnt the Nobel Prize,
however, I wonder how many prizes the gentleman has won in physics?
It seems like I cant even get the gentlemans real name or find any of his credentials to be able to ascertain
his capacity to review my work. As such, since he gave himself the name Bob-a-thon I shall call him Dr. Boba-thon, which, interestingly, I found to have a very disturbing definition in the urban
dictionaryhttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=b.+o : b.o.b.-a-thon: It may be that the
gentleman had not done a full investigation before jumping to conclusions and choosing this pseudonym.
In point #2, the gentleman suggests that my Schwarzschild Proton paper has no merit as such, and
supports his argument using three comments. I will address them one by one (for a complete rebuttal of his
technical criticisms of the Schwarzschild proton, read http://theresonanceproject.org/sp_manifesto.html).
a) His overall argument is circular
This assertion is quite remarkable as The Schwarzschild Proton, while proposing a unification view, attempts
to resolve a very significant circular argument found in the standard model. Almost a century ago, when it
was determined that there seemed to be a highly charged nucleon at the center of atoms that contained
most of their mass and that this entity was composed of particles that somehow must have been held
together against their electrostatic charge (Coulomb repulsion), the scientific community at large adopted the
concept of some mysterious strong force plucked out of thin air that happened to be in the correct proportion
to produce a confinement necessary for proton to proton interaction. Later on it was found that the proton
seemed to have internal structures called quarks and since those are confined in an even much smaller
space, the color force was elaborated and made to be infinitely strong. Now the strong force at the proton
scale was said to be only a remnant of the all-powerful color force of infinite nature mediated by gluons.
Nowhere in the standard model is there given an argument for the source of energy that would be necessary
to produce a force of infinite nature that is, the strongest force in the Universe.
Ironically, this is a perfect example of circular thinking. One finds an error in his or her current physical model
that doesnt agree with experiment or observation, then proceeds to invent a new kind of force or even a new
kind of matter (in the case of the dark matter/dark energy allegories, see below) then gives this new

invention exactly the characteristics necessary to make the initial model work. Then the researcher asserts
that the new quantity is confirmed, since it is predicted by the initial model which otherwise fails.
In order for the argument of the standard model to not be circular, a mechanism for the production of an
infinite confining force would have had to be given, and this is exactly what The Schwarzschild Protondoes. It
does so by postulating a certain amount of coherent and polarized structure in the available vacuum
fluctuations present at the quantum scale (known to produce foam-like structures in the spacetime manifold,
according to the standard model) and contributing to high curvature near or at the horizon. This is not
addressed or elaborated on in The Schwarzschild Proton paper, although it is better referenced in the final
copy for publication which is not available on the internet yet. However, my earlier papers Collective
Coherent Oscillation Plasma Modes In Surrounding Media of Black Holes and Vacuum Structure Quantum
Processes with Considerations of Spacetime Torque and Coriolis Forces and Spinors, Twistors,
Quaternions, and the Spacetime Torus Topology treated this very issue and showed that soliton-like
structures and acoustic plasma solutions found in the neighborhood of horizons demand a certain amount of
coherent structure in the vacuum at the quantum level. Therefore, the Schwarzschild paper is not a standalone paper, but a continuation of investigation of a certain approach to the structure of spacetime which
involves distortions due to torque and Coriolis effect which may produce discreteness at the quantum level
resolving the division between the relativistic world and the quantum world. This approach has been
successful in predicting many astrophysical phenomenons, including the existence of black holes prior to
galactic formation (http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2009/bhbulge/). The following quote is one example from The
Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einsteins Field Equations and Grand
Unification Theory by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.
In this section we have shown that we can modify Einsteins field equations and the Kerr-Newman solution
in order to accommodate torque and the Coriolis forces, which we term the Haramein-Rauscher solution.
Since Einsteins field equations obey the Laplace-Poisson condition, the torquing of spacetime may be the
result of the vacuum gradient density in the presence of matter-energy. Modification of the field equations
makes it possible to include the torque terms and hence generate more realistic solutions. These solutions
more comprehensively describe the dynamical rotational structures of galaxies, novae, supernovae, and
other astrophysical structures which in this case are driven by a spacetime torque. Hence, with the inclusion
of torque and Coriolis effects in Einsteins field equations, the spacetime manifold correlates well with the
observable mechanisms of black holes, galactic topology, supernova formation, stellar plasma dynamics and
planetary science such as ring formation and the Coriolis structure of atmospheric dynamics.This may lead
to a model where the driving torque and the dynamical Coriolis forces of the spacetime manifold topology are
responsible for the observed early formation of mature spiral galaxies [18]. Further, our model is consistent
with galactic structures, the super-massive black hole at their centers, as well as polar jets, accretion disks,
spiral arms and galactic halo formations.
[Reference 18. Robert G. Abraham et al., The Gemini Deep Deep Survey.I. Introduction to the Survey,
Catalogs, and Composite Spectra, AJ. 127, 2455.]
The impetus for the Schwarzschild Proton paper was merely to show that when a proton is treated as a mini
black hole, its interactive behavior actually predicts well (considering a first order approximation since a full
tensor analysis would need to be included using the Kerr-Newman metric and eventually the HarameinRauscher solution) the gamma emission, the interaction time and the so-called anomalous magnetic
moment of the proton which now has been given a source through the polarized vacuum structure.
b) The nucleus of a single atom of hydrogen has a mass of nearly a billion tons.
As the gentleman points out, this may be a silly thing to predict. Obviously, I thought of modifying G and the
Plancks scale so that the Schwarzschild Proton mass would come out to the standard value (as others have
done http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701006), however my point in this paper is actually to show (and this is
why I added a scaling graph) that objects in the Universe from universal size to subatomic particles tend
towards the Schwarzschild condition as demonstrated by the scaling graph in the paper. It was clear to me
when I first made the calculation that this would be an issue, and this is exactly why I included a graph based
on observational data of the mass of objects in the Universe from universal size to quasars, galactic
structures, stellar size objects and so on to see if the Schwarzschild proton mass had any merit whatsoever.
Since the initial calculation I have made with the collaboration of Dr. Hyson, we have made many graphs,
attempting to find a way to show the standard proton mass to be related to the rest of the objects in the
Universe including the Plancks mass. But in every case, whether it is the log of the mass versus the log of
the surface area or the log of the mass versus surface volume ratio, or mass versus entropy (surface), the
Schwarzschild condition proton falls nicely on the trend line (in some cases where we have a multitude of

objects from Universal size to quasars, large galactic clusters, local superclusters and so on), while the
standard model proton always falls completely off the trend line. Therefore, the mass versus radius graph
reveals a hidden and profound meaning; that is, that organized matter in the Universe seems to scale in
terms of its density towards the black hole condition.
The gentleman asked why we never measure this huge mass when we weigh hydrogen (or anything else).
First of all, here the gentleman makes a common error in his language (and I will assume it is not an error in
his understanding of physics), as mass and weight are two different animals
(http://www.hitxp.com/phy/cph/020902.htm). More importantly, the issue lies in the fact that so far the
standard model has been unable to identify a source for the mass of objects, such as the mass of particles,
as the concept of mass is a fairly esoteric concept. The best model so far from the mainstream is the Higgs
mechanism which has encountered serious obstacles. Read the Higgs mass under Hierarchy
problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem#The_Higgs_Mass. Here the standard model is
experiencing issues in predictions that conservatively include some 11 orders of magnitude for unification.
There are fundamental issues with the standard models understanding of mass and energy, although these
issues are not commonly acknowledged. The scaling graph in The Schwarzschild Proton paper is much
more than a statement about only the proton entity; it is also a statement of relationships in scales defining
horizons as a quantization of spacetime.
One of the best examples is the so-called bare mass or bare field in quantum field theory. This issue has
been so buried that many physicists are completely unaware of it, and the issue does not even appear as an
entry in Wikipedia as very little literature can be found on it. However, the problem is extremely significant,
that is, that even the standard model does not come anywhere close to predicting the mass of an atom that
has been measured in experimental studies. In fact, when the standard model does an analysis of an
electron entity, it finds that this entity must have infinite mass and infinite charge indeed. The approach of the
standard model has been to ignore these results and use a renormalization term typically denoted as Z-1 to
make the theory agree with experimental studies http://universe-review.ca/R15-12-QFT.htm#Green. This is
an enormous fudge factor and in this article discussing it http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/200802/msg01081.html and quoting reputable physicists, the gentlemans conclusions are quite telling:
a bare electron charge and mass is infinite.. something not even Wilson Renormalization Group can get
rid of. So I just wonder what is the source of the bare electron infinite charge and mass. What do you think?
Initially I think its something akin to black hole singurality but in reality it may involve more exotic physics.
In one way the Schwarzschild proton elucidates the fact that the energy potential necessary for confinement
must be accounted for and in the final copy of The Schwarzschild Proton (not available on the net yet as it is
in the publishing process) we calculate the mass dilation resulting from a proton rotating near relativistic
speeds and find that at a velocity of 10^-39 slower than C, the proton exhibits the mass of a Schwarzschild
entity. From there, I am planning on addressing the mass issue directly in an upcoming paper, showing that
the solution to the Schwarzschild proton, which was only a first order approximation as mentioned above,
should be eventually addressed in a Kerr-Newman and more importantly in a Haramein-Rauscher metric,
where torque and Coriolis effects are accounted for. These effects may show that the distortion of the
metrical space at the surface event horizon of the black hole structure produces turbulence and high
curvature that may not be detectable from a simple long-range mass spectrometer or scattering experiments,
which do not examine the highly curved structure near and at the horizon. In this case the black hole has
hairs due to Coriolis effects on the structure of spacetime (Others have come to similar conclusions from
completely different approaches http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9201059v1,http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9604134v2, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9609084v1, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9202014v1), and it is in that
fashion that I am planning on explaining the reason why the current so-called rest mass of the proton is so
far off the Schwarzschild condition and the apparent trend of other organized matter in our Universe.
On the cosmological level, this highly turbulent structure of horizons where velocities approach C may be the
source of matter creation through sheering of the spacetime manifold itself at the quantum level which
predicts a continuous matter creation model at black hole horizons instead of the current Big Bang approach
with its dark matter/dark energy allegories http://cosmologystatement.org/. Recent
findingshttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100318-black-holes-immaculate-conception/ not
only confirm the existence of black holes prior to galactic formation but as well may eventually confirm matter
creation processes near and at horizons, as in a continuous creation model, instead of the conventional
accretion of particles and dust, the source of which has not been identified by the standard Big Bang
modelhttp://cosmologystatement.org

c) The paper, while using some scientific terms, is presented at a very basic levelNassim is
merely playing with equations from student textbooks
To this assertion I believe once again that Einstein said it most eloquently, Any intelligent fool can make
things bigger and more complex It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite
direction. The Schwarzschild Proton paper could have been much more complex, as I had, with the
collaboration of Dr. Rauscher and some discussions Ive had with Dr. Rowlands
::http://theresonanceproject.org/uni/peter_rowlands.html, found multiple ways to go about it. For instance, in
2003 Dr. Rauscher and I elaborated a solution that comes to almost the same conclusions as the
Schwarzschild Proton using QCD and QED. Further, Dr. Rowlands rewrite system
(http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/6544.html) predicts as well singularity-like structures at the atomic
scale.
The initial first drafts of the Schwarzschild Proton included many of these more advanced complexities;
however my critics had already commented that my earlier papers were complex and too convoluted to make
clear my approach. Furthermore, it was important to me for the Schwarzschild proton to be as clear and
simple as possible, so that even a college level student could understand the mathematics and follow the
logic to its conclusions. There was a certain beauty about this simplicity, and I purposefully stripped any
complexities I could, and at the end of the day I may have gone a little bit too far with that idea. What I mean
by that is that I could have put a little more beef around the arguments necessary for the reader to
understand the approach I am taking and it is important to note that the current available version on the
Internet was a draft copy that was not meant for publication. It was produced barely on time for the deadline
for the CASYS conference while in the middle of touring during the summer of 2009. The paper will soon be
updated as it is undergoing peer review and it was already asked of me to provide better references and to
beef up certain sections.
One of the reasons the CASYS group thought of the merit of my paper to be worthy of an award is mostly
likely because of my ongoing relationship with this group which has been following the development of my
approach throughout the years and they could see the Schwarzschild Proton paper in the context of the
other papers I have published.
In point #3, we find a more serious assertion about my alleged fraudulent nature. The gentleman proceeds to
comment on an obscure and private discussion between myself and another researcher, Marko Rodin which
is actually an illegal video as it was never approved for publication. Nowhere in any text or in any multimedia
material do I ascertain the accuracy or the validity of this anecdotal discovery I was considering some years
ago. If the accuracy of the relationship between the phi curve and the ninth division of a circle structure
defined by Mr. Rodins mathematics had been fully explored and turned out to be valid, it would be
interesting and I would have certainly proceeded in publishing or discussing it in public and so on. However, I
did no such thing since I knew very well that the confirmation of the mathematics had not been done and
since my interest has been fairly low and my time extremely busy, I had not been able to complete the proof.
I actually made that quite clear in an email to a group of researchers in various fields that were inquiring
about the approach I took to produce the spiral. A debate flared up and I had to immediately intervene as I
was privy to the situation. My email to the group, sent on September 26, 2009, is as follows:
Dear Folks,
I am sorry if I inadvertently contributed to some confusion! I do not have the time to render the math for what
Ive done but the jepgs and gif animation I created are self explanatory. It is important to realize that when I
did this some 5 years ago I mentioned it to Marko in an anecdotal but interesting way. I did not do a full
mathematical analysis. If someone is interested I would love to see it as there may be a deeper meaning to it
or not.
So thank you again, Dr. Bob-a-thon, for having elucidated this calculation. However Id like to add that as a
first order approximation my finding was approximately 10% off, and a proper analysis would look at the
relationship to the Fibonacci sequence, which approximates phi, as is found in nature, where
is not
found in nature as an exact representation. Id love to hear the gentlemans thoughts, as he may want to
contribute more than criticism and character assassination. Whatever the case may be, to discredit all of my
work because I may have had a thought in a private conversation with another researcher that may have
been inaccurate or incomplete is inappropriate. In general, I attempt to find everything I can find on the
matter before I make public statements that would mislead the population. Having that said, I am sure in the
prolific amount of subjects I have studied, that extends from advanced physics to ancient civilization and
anthropology, that I have most likely made errors that were not purposefully attempting to deceive. Many

errors have been found in the body of work of some of the most prominent physicists and scientists on the
planet which does not necessarily discredit their contribution to humanity as a whole. Furthermore, many
things that are taught in universities today may be found to be completely incorrect tomorrow and that
certainly wouldnt make all the teachers purposefully attempting to deceive the students (although there is a
certain tendency in many educators to skip over some of the difficulties that current theories may have in
order to maintain an appearance of absolute truth).
In point #4: A question. How is it that there is absolutely no support from any part of the scientific
community for any of Nassims ideas, talks, or research?
Once again, the gentleman jumps to conclusions without having all the facts. Here are a few endorsements
from prominent scientists (http://theresonanceproject.org/testimonials.html)) who think that my approach has
merit and that throughout the years have been collaborating and contributing to my knowledge base.
Furthermore, as I provided links above (and there are more not provided here), other researchers with
serious credentials are quickly coming to the same conclusions I have regarding the singular nature of the
atomic world.
a) because the scientific establishment are afraid of having all their precious theories overturned?
To that statement, all I can say is that history speaks for itself as any new significant changes that were
brought to the scientific community were typically largely resisted, ridiculed and then eventually accepted. As
Schopenhauer said, All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently
opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. I would like to propose here that there is a movement,
which I believe is unstoppable, that will eventually come to conclude that early interpretations of the quantum
world were the result of the misunderstanding of the singular nature of atomic nuclei.
This change may take time andthe period is directly related to the resistance of the current paradigm to this
fundamental change in our view of the Universe. It is not a trivial change, and it is absolutely normal that
there is great resistance as the current theories have done an excellent job for a long time. However, we
have reached a moment where some of the fundamental issues such as the origin of mass,
electromagnetism, spin, and certainly unification, etc. must be addressed.
As for the assertion from the gentleman that mentioned the typical argumentative and unfriendly nature of
the scientific community, I believe that these attitudes are one of the most detrimental components to human
evolution and transcendence of some of our most tremendous challenges. The scientific community, and
certainly the world as a whole, must eventually come to learn that collaboration and constructive criticism
always produce a better outcome for everyone than competition and warring, whether as name-calling or
literally.
b) because scientists are incapable of seeing outside the box that they were trained to think in, and
are too proud to accept radical suggestion from an outsider?
(c) because they havent come across his ideas yet?
(d) because anyone with an understanding of science can see that his claims and his methods are
not scientific in any sense of the term, and that he doesnt actually know what hes talking about?
b), c) and d) are addressed by the answers above. However the gentleman mentions Garrett Lisi as an
example of a renegade physicist being accepted by the mainstream scientific community. To this I would
reply that Mr. Lisi published a set of equations that very much complements the current approach and as
such, it is not a radical change in the perspective of the particle world (although Mr. Lisis theory I believe
has furthered a specific approach to particle physics, it has of lately been found to have some serious
issues http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658). Whats interesting, however, is that once again it is some
independent person, in this case a surfer dude living in a van (as I did for many years in order to finance my
research) who came to advance the thinking of millions of professional scientists who get, in general, good
salaries and can dedicate most of their time to research instead of survival. What does that tell us about the
educational system and the current approach to advanced research?
In the case of someone bringing forth ideas that are much more radical, I would like to add this quote from
this Associated Press article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7536665/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Less tolerance for renegades?
Maybe there is an Einstein out there today, said Columbia University physicist Brian Greene, but it
would be a lot harder for him to be heard. Especially considering what Einstein was proposing.
The actual fabric of space and time curving? My God, what an idea! Greene said at a recent gathering at
the Aspen Institute. It takes a certain type of person who will bang his head against the wall because you
believe youll find the solution.

Perhaps the best examples are the five scientific papers Einstein wrote in his miracle year of 1905. These
thought experiments were pages of calculations signed and submitted to the prestigious journal Annalen
der Physik by a virtual unknown. There were no footnotes or citations.
What might happen to such a submission today?
We all get papers like those in the mail, Greene said. We put them in the crank file.
Furthermore, comments are made below the gentlemans article criticizing the fact that I have set up various
programs and sales in a nonprofit foundation and that these activities are not typical of scientific researchers.
Well, in order to eventually get out of my van and be able to continue doing advanced research, not only in
theoretical physics but as well in technological developments, it was necessary for me to reach out for public
support since I receive no financial support from large institutions or governmental structures. Therefore, I
have had to divide my time between running an organization to produce resources necessary for ongoing
research, the research itself and, of course, my family responsibilities. This has been most challenging and
certainly has not put me in a position of great wealth to this day. The foundation struggles every month to
make ends meet (especially in this economy), and my family is barely able to receive the financial support it
needs.
Point #5. A similar question. How is it that none of his radical historical ideas have any support from
any academic institutions either?
Most of the points given in #5 are also addressed above. This section is where the gentleman proclaims
himself and his institution the beholder of the truth and the only truth as if the standard model was a
complete and done deal. In the discussion below, confusion occurs because statements are made
proclaiming that I encouraged acquaintances to learn specific math skills so that they may help. This does
not mean that I dont understand math or that my math skills are not good enough to do what I do. As
mentioned in those comments, I am the first one to admit that I wish my mathematical capacity was much
higher, but that doesnt mean that its not good enough to do what I do with some of the help of others. Most
physics projects today involve multiple physicists helping each other with various skills. I do understand
enough math to write the papers I have written with the help of other researchers, however my extreme
dyslexia has been a handicap for most of my life and as such this struggle is not so unusual in the scientific
community as Einstein encountered it himself. I do encourage people that want to contribute to the research
to learn the math skills necessary to understand the previous work that has been published and to be able to
contribute useful and accurate suggestions.
Thereafter there is some discussion about how my work should be classified. There is no doubt that my work
in the field of physics belongs in the box of physics and nowhere else. However, the whole of my research
does not belong in any of the boxes available in the current mainstream community as it touches areas from
advanced physics to philosophy and spiritual concepts and, as such, will never be placed in any
conventional box as it is an all-encompassing holistic approach to existence and nothing less. The
gentleman is quite welcome to disagree with this unusual approach to science and philosophy; however, I
would suggest in the future not only that his comments remain professionally based but even that his
criticism be constructive and collaborative in nature as I can see that the gentleman has a great mind and a
good knowledge base. Once again, we live at a critical time in history where we need to learn to collaborate
and contribute to each other with mutual respect, no matter how widely divergent our opinions may be, in
order to overcome many of the challenges we are facing today.
Absolute certainty that an idea is wrongis an attitude that has no place in science and one that discredits
the scientific enterprise. Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate
Nassim Haramein
Research Director
The Resonance Project