Well above my paygrade, man. I know people who know this stuff, though, so I'll mention how the discussion went when I asked them about Lisi's theory. The argument was basically that any time you see cosmology mentioned in the popular press, it's because whoever is being mentioned didn't think their discoveries would withstand peer review. With Lisi, it was a case of "uhm, yeah, so?" because while Lisi was firmly convinced he'd solved the universe, everybody working in particle physics was firmly convinced that Lisi had been out of the loop for long enough to not really know where his theory even touched everybody else. But hey. ten minutes on Google and I found this. Edited to add 90 minutes of crazy: http://www.veoh.com/watch/v211655826NC94xJz?h1=NassimHaramein-BlackWhole(2011)
I checked out the Rational Wiki page and I really can't take it seriously. I don't see how it can attempt to be "rational" and speak in such a negative condescending voice. To me that detracts from its credibility. I'll check out the Black Whole later on today. But I did see the subtitle ("Scientific Evidence that Everything is One") and I must admit that I subscribe to that idea. I'd say my sympathy to the oneness of everything has come from an interest in Buddhism, Daoism, and the little I know of quantum mechanics and cosmology. I'm going out on a limb by recommending this video series, Crossing the Event Horizon. Is it a bit out there? Yes. But I think that for the practice of science to evolve (and for it to resolve the supposed tensions with religion), we have to at least entertain these different (oftentimes referred to as "crazy" or "weird") ideas. Surely quantum mechanics wasn't well receive in its day, and now look where we are.
Sure. Ask any scientist and he'll say you it's all a system. The question is whether or not we can adequately describe it. The "what the bleep do we know" crew are big about misunderstanding a tiny aspect of physics and then extrapolating it into a two hour exploration of how little of it they truly understand. Quantum physics has always been backed up by experimental data. That's the only reason weird-ass theories are proposed - when Einstein calls quantum entanglement "spooky action at a distance" you know he's not comfortable with the idea and tried really hard to find another explanation... but quantum entanglement is experimentally repeatable.But I did see the subtitle ("Scientific Evidence that Everything is One") and I must admit that I subscribe to that idea.
Have you checked out the Black Whole? I just finished watching it and I do believe he presents all of his information in a repeatable, very delineated way. Does he extrapolate a little in the end with some of his theories? Sure. But there are certainly spots within his lecture that, honestly, just make sense.