Nassim Haramein
Who? ???
Nassim Haramein 1/45 (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=pPgII_4ciFU#)
There are 40 or so videos on this subject.
I have em all.
Plus a few more.
It changed my mind on many levels.
Made so much sense.
Explained many things.
Recommend everyone to view them all.
In order.
May very well have a profound impact on the way you see things.
(link:://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa8/void888/Intimacy/startetradavinci.jpg)
Kindly post more dear Thomas! :thumbsup:
Quote from: VLS on Jul 18, 11:25 PM 2010
Kindly post more dear Thomas! :thumbsup:
You mean you want more on this topic?
Or on others?
Nevermind, I got the links!
2/45 :
Nassim Haramein 2/45 (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=-TV3a09vFYI#)
:)
Quote from: VLS on Jul 19, 01:28 AM 2010
Nevermind, I got the links!
2/45 :
Nassim Haramein 2/45 (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=-TV3a09vFYI#)
:)
Great.
I didn't want to have em all here.
As there are 45 of em.
Ahh number 2.
The 1st, 2cnd and 3rd dimensions.
One of my favourite episodes.
Nothing to the 4th. LOL...
So much space.
Where does the Sun radiate out to?
Hey Victor.
And anyone else...
Has you or any other member viewed the entire 45 videos?
Be interested in your comments.
Re: String Theory.
From Quotes and Bits.
link:://rouletteforum.cc/general-discussion/quotes-and-bits/15/ (link:://rouletteforum.cc/general-discussion/quotes-and-bits/15/)
From Nassim...
Naaim Haramein 21/45 (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=letcIjLPsqM#)
Amazing.
"So here is my String Theory"...
Priceless!
Quote from: VLS on Jul 27, 05:13 AM 2010
"So here is my String Theory"...
Priceless!
I know.
I watch these time and time again.
I even downloaded them.
And saved them to my pc.
So I can keep on referring to them.
I have viewed all 45.
Plus I have his Video series.
Crossing the Event Horizon - Rise to the Equation, a Symposium with scientist Nassim Haramein
Nassim Haramein Event Horizon 1 (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=ir5sQEg0rs4&feature=related#)
These are the torrents for nassim's whole videos:
- Crossing the Event Horizon - Rise to the Equation, a Symposium with scientist Nassim Haramein
link:://isohunt.com/torrent_details/69450181/Nassim+Haramein?tab=summary (link:://isohunt.com/torrent_details/69450181/Nassim+Haramein?tab=summary)
- nassim harramein - Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library.
link:://isohunt.com/torrent_details/99471385/Nassim+Haramein?tab=summary (link:://isohunt.com/torrent_details/99471385/Nassim+Haramein?tab=summary)
If you are new to torrents, get and install a torrent client to fetch the files.
Recommended: :.utorrent.com (link:://:.utorrent.com)
You can view .flv files with one of the many free FLV players (link:://:.google.co.ve/search?hl=es&q=flv+player+freeware) all over the net.
.flv is simply flash video. If you can watch youtube chances are you may already have a flash video player installed.
Remember, since you are getting it from other peers, download speed may vary.
You can help spread Nassim's message by seeding the torrent after downloading (leaving utorrent on with nassim's torrents active).
Cheers!
Victor
I just got a PM from Tetragrammaton
Note: I rarely do this. (Post others PM messages)
QuoteHave you looked into Nassim Haramein stuff?
QuoteYes, he is a fraud and a big one. And probably he really belives in his "Schwarzschild Proton" (Mini black hole).
Calculations for Schwarzschild radius for the size of proton is so much off, that forces that would act would be milion x milion times greater then they actualy are.
by the way Schwarzschild radius for the sun is approx. 3km and you know how much bigger is the sun and how much energy it has. But to compress to denstity of a black hole, the radius would be only 3 km and that doesn't mean that gravity would change. So for his Schwarzschild Proton gravity would be in the range of small planets.
His physics is totaly off the reality and have no place in real physics and science. His theory is made up for people who do know anything about physic and mathematic and they rather belive his simple theory that mainstream physic which is actualy made on real experiments, but it is much harder to understand without mathematical background then Nassims crazy theories.
Of course DVDS are selling great and sadly his follower are still defending him.
For those with maths on the mind.
Have a read of his work.
And make your own mind up.
The Schwarzschild Proton
link:://:.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/AIP_CP_SProton_Haramein.pdf (link:://:.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/AIP_CP_SProton_Haramein.pdf)
link:://:.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/plasma_paper.pdf (link:://:.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/plasma_paper.pdf)
link:://:.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/scalinglaw_paper.pdf (link:://:.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/scalinglaw_paper.pdf)
link:://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html (link:://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html)
Quote from: ThomasGrant link=topic=477. msg43956#msg43956 date=1301083787
I just got a PM from Tetragrammaton
Note: I rarely do this. (Post others PM messages)
So why did you? Do you honestly belive in this stuff (I did when I first watch his DVDs).
Here is just to compare how big some known object are when you calculate them Schwarzschild radius (the size of the object if you compress them to size of black hole, where not even c can escape from gravitational force).
M_{moon} = 0. 0123 M_{earth} 7. 348 x 10^{22} kg
M_{earth} = 5. 974(9) x 10^{24} kg
M_{jupiter} = 318 M_{earth} = 1. 900 x 10^{27} kg
M_{sun} = 1. 988 9(30) x 10^{30} kg
G_{newton} = 6. 673(10) x 10^{-11} m^3 kg^{-1} s^{-2}
c = 299 792 458 m s^{-1}
The notation xxxxx(yy) means the last two digits of the xxxxx are
uncertain by an amount yy [one standard deviation].
======================================â€Ã,¦
Calculate:
R_S(moon) = 0. 05455 mm
R_S(earth) = 4. 435 028 11 mm
R_S(jupiter) = 1. 410 m
R_S(sun) = 2. 953 250 08 km
Looks like link from previous post doesnt work. Here is the correct one: hxxp: azureworld. blogspot. com/2010_06_01_archive. html
Nassim Haramein, Michael Hyson, E. A. Rauscher
Nassim's papers are also co written with these two.
E. A. Rauscher
link:://elizabethrauscher.com/ (link:://elizabethrauscher.com/)
Michael Hyson
link:://:.planetpuna.com/hyson/ (link:://:.planetpuna.com/hyson/)
I am not a mathematician.
I looked at the papers.
Have no idea on the maths.
Personally... I like Nassim.
He made sense to me.
As for the third law vs the first law.
It's all semantics.
QuoteSo why did you? Do you honestly belive in this stuff (I did when I first watch his DVDs).
Umm... I must apologize to you.
I should of asked first. Before posting it.
If you wish I can delete my post.
Some new video from Nassim.
Here he is in Australia.
Part 1
Nassim Haramein Part 1 de 7.wmv (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrav2jkuClM#)
The page is in Spanish.
But the video is in English.
I'm not sure, but I was watching a video from him recently, I think is more recent. I will make a new post, just making notice here so interested people may check it out :)
I have not looked at the videos yet but thought i would comment because i already have my own theory of everything. I will probably be annoyed if i watch this man's version of the theme or theory of everything.
Let me explain as briefly as i can. To my view, *everything* is a term belonging to a B/being. This Being is everything such that nothing exists outside this Being, and everything that does exist *is* this Being. The nature of this Being is what we might call *spirit*. Spirit does include particles, and so, is not ruled by particle physics, or for that matter, it is not subject to math at all. As such, this Being cannot be seen through the design of the way a *human being* sees.
Now, if this Being is everything, what then is a human being? Or, what is a planet, a tree, a star...what is anything that is built upon particles and particle physics? Pretty much everything that humans call "everything" is what i prefer to call *nothing*. This is logical if it's true that everything does not include particles...no matter how small.
But perhaps another word could be substituted for *nothing*: CONCEPTS. Particles, and anything that can be built with particles, are concepts. Now, what, ultimately is a concept? A concept is ultimately an aspect of imagination. By the time the dots are connected, we come to find out that particles, and the constructs built upon them, are a product of thinking and believing. Extrapolating further, we come to find out that human sight is founded entirely upon thinking and believing (in concepts).
Finally, we come to find out that man's world is built entirely upon "sand", having no real foundation except thinking and believing...thinking and believing in particles and what they seem to produce. Better said, it is thinking and believing in concepts that produces what i will call *phenomena* or what i sometimes call *magic*.
Let me introduce two other words to help make this easier to grasp. Everything is a term belonging to Reality, which is actually a Being. A world built upon particles is in direct competition with Reality for all of it's attributes, especially the attributes of "everything" and "reality". As such, a particulate world (a matter/material world) is a non-everything, and a non-reality posing as "everything" and "reality". This character can be classified as an *illusion*. In this illusion, each thinker/believer sees what s/he wants to see.
I would most likely be annoyed to watch the video because it is likely to classify a world built upon particles as "everything" and "reality"...and then proceed to be amazed and fascinated by it to no end. The fascination is so intense that is boils down to a kind of *worship*, and reminds me of *intoxication*. My theory suggests that this worship keeps the illusion intact for as long as the thinker/believer wishes it to be "true", to be "real", and/or to be "everything". In this way, the illusion becomes a trap, and eventually a kind of prison...a prison for the mind.
No matter what matter is constructed of, be it the tiniest particle, be it a concept...it is constructed of 100% mind-stuff. In this way, there really is no difference between the mind and it's manifestations. We call things "physical"...but really, it is MENTAL.
According to my theory, everything that has a construct (everything we may call "physical"), is the manifestation of a mind that has wandered away from Reality into the realm of the unknown...into the realm of imagination...into some sort of *Twilight Zone* of concepts. In Reality, concepts are non-existent. They are, after all, of the imagination.
Under the influence of imagination, it is very difficult to tell whether imagination is also included within Reality. According to my theory, imagination is in direct competition with Reality for all of it's attributes. If it could, imagination would force Reality to capitulate so that imagination could take over and "rule the world" so-to-speak. But it only rules a world of it's own making...one made in it's own image (imagination).
I hope you enjoyed my little theory. If you are not fascinated by my theory as much as you are by the other theory, then your preference will construct an EXPERIENCE accordingly. But the experience will not be different from paying five dollars to go on a roller coaster ride, and will have about the same amount of meaning and purpose. There comes a time when we would prefer to get off the ride before we throw up.
So instead of a *theory of everything* mentality, i prefer to have a *theory of nothing* world-view...in an attempt to reduce the world i see to it's most basic building block: nothing. Success in this regard would cause the world i see to *disappear*...to vanish into thin air. If successful, the mind would then see Reality where it always was: everywhere.
Theoretically, then, a material "reality" hides a spiritual Reality like a mask hides a face, or like a costume masks an actor. A material world, as such, is another "self" in disguise. The appearance of many different selves IS the disguise. It hides the fundamental oneness of the one true Self behind the mask. The question then becomes, who is wearing the mask, is it the Self, or is it the selves? Under the influence of imagination, it is very difficult to discern the difference.
To answer the question of why, i would suggest that the selves do it *for the hell of it.* It's what i sometimes call F.U.N., an acronym for *unconscious fantasy*. We all love masquerades like Halloween and Mardi Gras because we can all go out at night and wear masks and act out a lot of fantasies under the influence of whatever. Eventually, when the sun starts to rise, the high wears off and it's time to go home.
Sincerly,
Still Christ!
Quote from: Still on Feb 23, 02:51 AM 2013
To my view, *everything* is a term belonging to a B/being. This Being is everything such that nothing exists outside this Being, and everything that does exist *is* this Being.
And in what does this being find itself existing in? Its own imagination, or a plain of existence outside its own imagination?
If it exists within its own imagination then it doesn’t exist at all, and if it exists within a plain of existence outside its imagination then it is not *everything*
Quote from: Skakus on Feb 23, 03:48 AM 2013
And in what does this being find itself existing in? Its own imagination, or a plain of existence outside its own imagination?
If it exists within its own imagination then it doesn’t exist at all, and if it exists within a plain of existence outside its imagination then it is not *everything*
First let me correct a typographical error. In the second paragraph of my first post i said that "Spirit does include particles". I meant to say *Spirit does NOT include particles*. Particles are the building blocks of imagination, which is responsible for the appearance of all forms, all shapes and sizes...all of which are *concepts*.
The B/being i mentioned exists within itSelf, which is sometimes called Reality and other times Everything. Limitless, there is no shape or size or border. So it is impossible for anything to be *outside* of the Self. The Self's most fundamental attributes may include terms like Spirit and/or Mind. The Self exists within it's own Spirit/Mind.
Imagination is really an alien concept representing a rogue aspect of the Self's Mind. This is because imagination requires first some kind of limitation, such as a limitation in knowledge. Knowing itSelf, the Self knows Everything entirely, without limitation. Imagination is a foreign mechanism intent upon going beyond the Self, to go *outside* the Self...to be *apart* from the Self. Apart from Self, imagination ultimately adds another "self" consisting of many *selves*, each one having some kind of limitation that sets it apart from every other so-called "self", each seeking *more*. As such, imagination is intent upon accomplishing all that is *impossible*. This explains why all seeking for *more* will always be a struggle, will always be frustrating, disappointing, and ultimately not possible.
By the way, whatever is not possible is also *not true*. ;)
By adding what is not true to what is true (to what is Real), imagination is intent upon adding more to Everything. Again, this is essentially an impossibility. It's motive is to have *more*, even if it means having *less*. While it is not possible to have less than Everything, it is apparent that we can have the *experience* of having less, thanks to the machinations of imagination. But having less is not the primary motive. The prime motive is to have *more*.
Given this *more theory*, what would happen if more was added to:
a) Truth
b) Everything
c) All-Knowledge
?
The answers would default to the following:
a) Lies (illusions, delusions)
b) Nothing
c) Ignorance (not knowing, believing)
In each case, imagination will call it's lies "truth", call it's nothing "everything" and call it's ignorance "knowledge".
Whatever imagination is, it cannot be outside the Self mentioned. So the Self cannot exist "within a plain of existence outside its imagination". Nor does it exist within its imagination, which is limited, comprising all concepts of limitation. Reality is beyond imagination, but not in terms of distance or boundary. Distance and boundary (including levels and planes) are concepts of imagination, and as such, are not true.
There really isn't anything true at all about imagination, including its very so-call "existence". It's existence is imagined, and so, not true. On the other hand, the Mind that hosts it is True and Real and Free. It is free to host the concept of imagination as a means to having more. But it is a temporary arrangement as the Mind learns that the imagination's temptation to have *more* is actually *less* (or at least the experience of less), and so, less desirable than Everything.
Took the kids to Disney a ton of times and got schooled regarding imagination by a creature called Figment. He never said nothin about any of this stuff ^-^ Who's to say?