Yes I did. The videos you sent me are not really about numbers though, they're about physics.
Nassim Haramein is not a reputable physicist. I haven't had time to look up Marko Rodin though because he doesn't have a Wikipedia page.
Woah, woah....woah. Hold your horses, synechist. I don't think you want to open up this can of worms in this thread. I've taken several workshops on Nassim's theories.
Why might you say that Nassim is not a reputable physicist? Because he doesn't have a university physics degree by which his mind would have been conditioned to fall in line with the asinine assumptions of the world's university-educated physicists?
A degree is not necessary to qualify one as a reputable physicist, good sir. Nassim has some quite novel ideas that make more sense than anything I ever studied in my university physics classes.
Heh. Yes I agree that a university physics degree isn't necessary to be a good physicist. I find his ideas interesting myself actually.
I'm not a physicist and don't claim to have a well-founded opinion on Haramein - and so I don't take my opinion seriously.
But for what it's worth, what led me to this (tentative) view is that Haramein posits that protons orbit each other. This is not how protons work; they don't "orbit" because they're spatially too indeterminate to do that sort of thing. So from this I assumed that while his ideas are appealing, in this respect - which is a key component of his theory - they've gone pretty drastically wrong.
I'm open to correction of course.
But let's chat about this elsewhere. It's not relevant to this thread. PM me?
