A question. How is it that there is absolutely no support from any part of the scientific community for any of Nassim's ideas, talks, or research? None of his papers have been published in any scientific journal – certainly not one subject to proper peer review. Scientists seem to either treat him as a crank or dismiss him altogether. Which of the following reasons sounds most plausible? Is it...
(a) because the scientific establishment are afraid of having all their precious theories overturned?
Science loves having theories overturned. It's true that individual scientists are human and can be reluctant to accept when their way of seeing things is revealed to be false. Some will be slower to accept new things than others. But all will agree that this is part of the job of being a scientist. In addition, many scientists are deeply competitive, and for every theory beloved to one set of scientists, there'll be another set that is devoted to looking for any serious evidence they can use to pull the rug out from under it.
The world scientific community is an extremely diverse and argumentative bunch. Surely it would be crazy to imagine them being capable of unanimously agreeing to dismiss perfectly good ideas sitting right under all their noses.
This is a fact compatible with even the most cynical view of scientists – that they're more often out to prove each other wrong, even to backstab, than to back each other up. It makes it implausible that any scientist actually sees Nassim's ideas as any sort of threat. His ideas have simply never been taken seriously.
(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?
Scientists can be guilty of narrow thinking. If you specialise in an extremely complex area, the effort of getting your head around the ideas within one framework might be so taxing that the last thing you want to be doing is considering the possibility that the whole framework might be wrong. At the same time, there are many scientists who are mavericks and ready for change, ready to throw it all up in the air. They also have all manner of values, and all manner of spiritual outlooks and practices.
There are hundreds of thousands of scientists in the universities of the world, and their ways of thinking are as various as any other group of hundreds of thousands of human beings - if not more so. There'll always be plenty of scientists hungry for any radical idea, especially in topics as hot as grand unified theories, provided it's got some substance.
There may well be unanimous skepticism about things which have utterly no scientific basis, such as someone claiming to have a theory that the moon is made of green cheese. But this is not because of any inability to think outside of the box.
Regarding outsiders – yes, pride and over-cautiousness can get in the way of scientists taking suggestions seriously from people not affiliated to a university. But would every single one of them fall prey to this? Again, scientists, and even scientific establishments, are surely too numerous and too diverse for this to be plausible.
When Garrett Lisi submitted a potentially revolutionary theory for the unification of particle physics, he was an unemployed surfer living in a camper van on a Hawaiian island with no university affiliation. (Aside from now renting a room in a shared house, it seems he still is.) Perhaps the majority of physicists initially did not take him seriously. But there were certainly plenty who did, who were waiting for someone like this to challenge everything, who looked at his work and thought "you know, this guy really does know what he's talking about. He could be onto something here. And I want in on this."
There are so many other examples of theories being accepted from outsiders (Einstein, for one) that this answer doesn't hold any water. If he isn't getting taken seriously, it certainly can't be blamed on a complete worldwide closed-mindedness among all respectable scientists.
(c) because they haven't come across his ideas yet?
Nassim and his Resonance Project have a massive internet presence, and they've been promoting their ideas to scientific bodies, presenting at university conferences (alongside student projects and industry researchers) throughout the world, and submitting papers to peer-review journals at every opportunity for most of the last decade. Not to mention training hundreds of people to promote their ideas for them.
There have been considerable efforts to put an article about Nassim Haramein, the scientist, on Wikipedia. The results can be seen here – I think you'll find the discussion revealing.
(It's worth noting that all Garrett Lisi did to set the academic world abuzz was to present his ideas at a single relatively obscure conference in Iceland.)
(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 doesn't actually know what he's talking about?
I reckon so.
The Schwarzschild Proton and other ideas from The Resonance Foundation have also been discussed in depth at sciencefile.org.
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/nassim-haramein-fraud-or-sage-part-2.html
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html#s2