Question: So on the net (one forum) I stumbled upon [this](http://resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1367405491-Haramein342013PRRI3363.pdf), and article by Nassim Haramein. Now, I researched this guy a bit, and I couldn't find any peer reviewed article (other than this in 'Physical Review & Research International', which tbh I've never heard of before).

What he's saying is:

> 
> We find an exact quantized expression of the Schwarzschild solution to
>  Einstein’s field equations utilizing spherical Planck units in a
>  generalized holographic approach.
> 
> 
> 

I went a bit through the 'article', and the whole 'derivation' is kinda... lacking? All he did was make an assumption (replaced surface area Planck unit with his 'spherical Planck unit'), and made series of 'derivations' comparing to the actual data (he used Cygnus X-1 as a reference, but I saw no uncertainties in his data, which was a bit odd).

So is this another 'crackpot' who 'invented' (or better yet simplified) a pretty complex existing theory? I am currently studying the correspondence principle (Kerr/CFT to be precise), and this is rather complicated area with some complicated math behind it (topology, symmetries, etc.), so when I stumbled on this, my inner crackpot meter went kinda on, since I've seen these kind of 'discoveries' before (usually ppl who found a working perpetuum mobile :D).

I'm asking, because I know there are physicists here who are experts in the field of general relativity and the holographic principles, so they are more qualified to say if this is nonsense or not.

I think it kinda is...

Answer: 
1. [RationalWiki:Nassim Haramein](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nassim_Haramein) say's he is a crank. I would not entirely discount their opinion.
2. But I have had a look into: 2005 Haramein- Crossing the Event Horizon which consists of 4 DVDs worth of explanation (presentation) behind his reasoning. And I have to say it's funky, but it makes sense. Have not totally grasped it yet, but it vibes with my view that I have come up and other sources which he also goes into in the above video.

The core his core statements are: our universe is fractal and everything is a black hole.
Teaser:
The beginning of his reasoning is:

1. Dimension 0: point - does not exist
2. Dimension 1: line, made up of points - does not exist
3. Dimension 2: plane, made up of lines - does not exist
4. Dimension 3: space, made up of 6 planes - does exist

How do you get something that exists out of something that does not exist? You don't unless everything is made up of dot's. Turtles - no - dot's all the way down and all the way up. 

The rest is about how he tries to combine this with Einsteins field theory, ancient texts, the planck length, the infinite amount of energy in a cm^2 of space which has been normalized by physicists in order to not having to deal with infinity, et. al. Also that waves are actually vortices in 3d space instead of 2d waves and that "we" know this but do not depict this in our textbooks, because it's easier this way.

Also why the universum is expanding. And if one thing is expanding, something else must contract, but what? The lungs of God? 

He posits that since everything is a black hole that sucks stuff in (information) but also radiates energy (Hawking Radiation), which also contains information, that what we see as stars and atoms etc. are all just the radiative sides of black holes and that we are living inside a black hole, that's why the night sky is black. Only the outsides of the other black holes that are outside of us radiate light or energy.
I read this paper and looked into 'Physical Review and Research International' as well. You may have never heard of it before because it has only existed for 2 years, providing a high level peer review process internationally. I even noticed referees from Cambridge, UC Berkeley, University of Melbourne, which are some of the top schools in the world. The journal also publicized the peer review correspondences to include Haramein's responses to each referee. Have you read these answers? They may provide a better understanding to the paper as a whole. It seems as though the simplicity appeared to you as shocking and therefore negating the profound implications entirely. I encourage you take a closer look.

<http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history.php?iid=224&id=4&aid=1298>