I'm been curious as to why this breaking news hasn't been put out here by one of our astute members. This is not a practical joke item in a Tabloid mag.

This is 2nd confirmation of 'faster than light speed" of neutrinos by sophisticated labs, this one at CERN, by meticulous physicists. The implications of this are nothing short of "earth shattering" to the present known laws of physics and all that implies.

This will certainly vindicate many of the Occultists, Metaphysicians and Seers, East and West, of the past. Some physicists are already speaking of further collaboration of "parallel universes," "other dimensions," time travel, and you name it.

My questions to the science oriented members, and all others here,  is did Blavatsky predict this in any of her writings? What implications do you see in this, not only for the new emerging science, but for spirituality?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/18/was-einstein-wrong-faster...
speeds-reconfirmed-by-new-neutrino-test/

Views: 453

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The November 6th tests confirmed the results of earlier tests but some uncertainties still remain to sort out. Most likely it will be the middle or late 2012 before the speed of neutrinos will be conclusively established.

However, the what is still to be finalized is only a matter of 60 nanoseconds. Too small a value for people like us. Even if proved, it is only marginally faster than light. Based on this inter-stellar travel will still be only a distinct possibility. It is not yet what the occultists have proposed. One also wishes that they could also submit themselves to the rigorous scrutiny that the OPERA team is subjected to. 

What is noted with great anticipation is that even the traditional science appears to be heading for a big change like our political and social systems.

Thanks, Joe, excellent. These are the types of seers and writings I was referring to. There are many more that can be added. 

The original discovery by physicists in Italy was carefully gone over by them for any errors for about 5 months before they announced it publicly. Now, the physicists at CERN, obviously on the conservative side, announce a 2nd confirmation. This warrants some serious consideration, to say the least. Other labs will most likely be following suit in the future.

I read a summary of an interview a short while back on Coast-to-Coast, hosted by Georgy Noory, with Dr. Fred Alan Wolf and Dr. Jack Sarfaffi, two of the prominent "non-materialist" physicists. This was just before the announcement of the original discovery in Italy, and they said there was a big world changing breakthrough coming out soon. They didn't say what it was, but it looks like this was circulating among some people in the physics community before it went public.

The issue is one like the discovery of Cold Fusion in the 80's. The media really play this stuff up. Especially when the scientist making the claim wants attention.

http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.181803

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/nov/21/faster-than-light-neu...

the above link is a serious issue. (Glashow is a Nobel Laureate, BTW). The number of issues with declaring the finding "real" are enormous.  The ways the measurements can fail are plentiful. Most do not involve new Physics. So --- relax.

  Note: they also seem to ignore the results of previous experiments that did not show this new result.

So.....   they only need to show why every experiment done to date will give the same result as in the past, and also add in something for this that defies all the experiments done in the past. Tall order.

Thanks, John, for responding and posting. We'll see how this plays out. These sets of experiments may or may not hold, but eventually faster than light travel will be proved as measurement instruments get finer and finer. History has shown that all barriers and absolutes eventually get overridden.

I'd liken it  more to 100 years ago when faster than sound air travel was laughed at, and jet planes not even in science fiction/fantasy stories. Submarines were scoffed at. D*** Tracy's radio and TV wristwatch was considered a comic hoot in its day. Experts claimed that a human could never break the four minute mile. Examples like this are too numerous to count.

Cold fusion is still being claimed in independent research. I haven't kept up with all the latest news on it, but catch an article here and there. The claims that it is being repressed by the Powers-That-Be in the orthodox energy industry seem credible given the fact trillions of dollars are at stake. Perhaps someone here has the time to do more looking into all this.

the SN 1987A  showed:

"a measurement of low-energy neutrinos from supernova 1987A found the particles arrived coincident with light to within a few parts per billion."   (from the APS article)

that is a measurement taken over a 160,000 light-year time scale. Also SN 1987A did a slam dunk that Einstein was right in Gravitational Theory. The interesting thing that every time they try like heck to overturn Quantum Mechanics  and Relativity they have just dug the hole deeper and proved it correct to even greater accuracy. 

as to cold fusion, several patents are granted, and small companies, universities have most of them. (I think that is correct).

" The claims that it is being repressed by the Powers-That-Be in the orthodox energy industry seem credible given the fact trillions of dollars are at stake."

so .. because there may be trillions at stake makes the science more likely to be plausible?

If it is "locked-up" anywhere, it is in the Gov. labs exploring its practical military uses. It also is already in every other country's gov. labs. (That experiment was incredibly easy).  So -- any country (literally) could have it in full scale production at any time by now. rather curious.

Thanks, John. I'll let the physicists argue this all out on the scientific level. At the moment we're only hearing from the materialists who control mainstream physics. I'll be interested when the non-materialists, New Science physicists weigh in on their interpretation of the raw data, once it's all in.

As I said,I haven't kept up minute-to-minute on the cold fusion situation, but know it is still alive, though getting little mainstream news coverage. I know there are some who present good evidence for the repression of this and other alternative energy sources. Too lengthy to go into here.

Thanks for bringing up the military involvement. I overlooked that and you're right, governments always go for the military applications first. From the little I've read that has been leaked out, DARFA, I believe it is, is involved in some very exotic, above top secret research. Certainly, practical applications of cold fusion would be among those.

It's been said that big corporations are arm-in-arm with the powerful Military/Industrial Complex, something that President Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address. A case can be made that the U.S. Military has become merely a wing of certain major multinational corporations.

"I'll let the physicists argue this all out on the scientific level. At the moment we're only hearing from the materialists who control mainstream physics. I'll be interested when the non-materialists, New Science physicists weigh in on their interpretation of the raw data, once it's all in."

This is always the part I really seem to miss. The Physics we already have does not cause any problems with the meta-physics I expect most people on this site believe in. The two parts that I have problems with are:

1) The Multiverse. This is an idea to force total Determinism and Materialistic-Science into firmer ground. This the Physics created by Atheists to assure that QM always has a Physical Interpretation.

2) Bohmian QM. This is pushed mostly by the total materialists (i.e.Atheists) to force a "Real" view back into QM. Everything is materialistic and "Real" on the Physical side. Now, most people push this for reasons I do not understand. Fortunately, Bohmian QM has some very serious issues and they keeping getting worse. I realize Bohm was friends with Krishnamurti etc. He is a great person. I am not disputing that.

Those are good points, John, but various metaphysical groups have already dealt those two approaches. They may be pushed by materialists, but by adding the vital component of consciousness the spiritual crowd easily adapts them.

A number of metaphysical/spiritual teaches are using the "many worlds" theory to point out the existence of "parallel universes" and other dimensions, experienced by so many seers and mystics, past and present. Metaphysical quantum physicist Dr. Fred Alan Wolf wrote a book, "The Yoga of Time Travel" based on parallel universes.

David Bohn's "Holographic Universe Theory" is a mainstay among many metaphysical schools of thought. I was never certain how much of a materialist he was or not. Perhaps you know. I was unaware that the materialists were pushing his theory. He seemed to have missed adding consciousness, the spiritual ingredient, in my view, but may have been attempting that towards the end of his life. He was getting into the Kaballah and Hermeticism, one thing that caused friction between him and J. Krishnamurti.

By adding consciousness, his Holographic Universe works fine. The part having all the components of the whole. I can see where he was attrached to the writings of Hermes Trismegistus, "as above, so below, as below, so above,' who got it right centuries ago.

The late Michael Talbot's classic "The Holographic Universe" is based on Bohn's work and brings it into the metaphysical realm. Required reading in many groups.

The split between the materialists and the "New Scientists" is one of the role of "Consciousness". The old guard Materialists/Atheists state that consciousness is a chance byproduct of the brain, is confined to electro-chemical reactions in the brain and has no  bearing on quantum physics. The "New Science" says that consciousness is the "ground of all being" and that matter and that the brain are epiphenomena of consciousness. Classic idealism.That's a big difference.

You're right that the Atheists/Materialists have tried and continue to do so, cast everything in a absolute physical/material interpretation. They can't deny the validity of the Aspect Experiment(entanglement) and The Split Screen Experiment(that a conscious mind is needed to collapse wave potentiality into particles), both reconfirmed many times.  What they essentially do to get around this is say that this only happens at the micro-level, not the macro-level and that only a measuring device is needed, not a conscious observer.

I think Max Planck, one of the giants of 20th century physics and one of the fathers of quantum physics states the position of the metaphysical view very well:


“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” Max Planck

How the materialists captured mainstream physics is complex, but there is no sense arguing with them. Again, Max Planck says it succinctly:

“An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out.”
Max Planck

As for David Bohn and J. Krishnamurti, they did have warm relationship at first for years, then had a split. One factor came about when Bohn found out about JK's long secret affair with a married woman; Bohn's growing critque to some of JK's teachings and methodology, and Bohn's growing interest in the Kaballah and Hermeticism. There's also talk that JK began treating Bohn like a pupil rather than a collaborative equal.They reconciled somewhat before JK's death in 1986.

I must say, personally, I found the dialogues between the two, JK and Bohn, dry, uninspired and much of it wrong headed.

This is good stuff...

I need to get back on this, and will do so (time crunch currently) Also - I realized that I unfortunately really got this discussion into a direction that is not part of the "topic".

We will get this going at a slightly later date. I do want to continue. We actually will find we have much in common. I differ in that (my view) we do not need new Physics. It works perfectly well as is, and has plenty of room for consciousness. One thing I would like, having not seen it before, is the source for:

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” Max Planck

I am only looking for more context. I'm not doubting he said it <g>

I am looking forward to a more lengthy conversation. I have always felt that we need a Science Group to discuss these items. However, I would probably chase too many people out. That is why I stay rather silent on most Science topics. The popular/mass-market books are really full of some stuff that is wild speculation and I fear it is done mostly for money. Worse - people read those, and come out of the book actually believing they understand topics in detail. That is not right. No one wins (well, maybe the author). 

Thanks for the kind reply.

Frankly, John,I'm sorry, but science is not my forte nor am I a "science" type guy, per se.I have no ability of the higher math needed to get into the details of quantum physics. I have looked into these matters over the years and the metaphors and general principles naturally sink in. I don't have the time nor passion to engage in lengthy discussions of any kind at the moment, for I'm busy with several projects. I appreciate your interest in doing such, but must decline. I wouldn't mind a few more brief exchanges. I suggest you join the "Science and Tradition" forum here.

I disagree that the so-called "popular/mass market books" are of little value. I don't which ones you are referring to, but Dr. Amit Goswami's "Self Aware Universe" is one of the best books to give a compelling argument for the "Consciousness as ground of being" around and gives a thorough rundown of materialism through the centuries and it's inherent problems. Dr. Fred Alan Wolf's works are first rate in my opinion, as are Nick Herbert's. They are for the layperson and I feel that's needed. Most give a good reference section to other, more detailed works for those wanting to go into more details.

I'm afraid I don't have the temperament to be a orthodox scientist. I like the "wild speculations,' as you say, as they're the  "juice" that keeps science turning into just dry sawdust. Even Einstein would agree as he said "Imagination is more important than knowledge" and "My penchance for fantasy has served me better than any abstract reasoning ability I may have."

I don't know what writings of Max Planck those quotes come from, I picked them up from an article or two awhile back and didn't note any source. You'll have to look over his works. If I see any citations on them, I'll let you know. Here's another one of his I like that I'll leave off with that ties in with the speed of light subject of this discussion:

“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.” - Max Planck

My questions to the science oriented members, and all others here,  is did Blavatsky predict this in any of her writings? What implications do you see in this, not only for the new emerging science, but for spirituality?

Don't know about HPB atm but G. de Purucker says somewhere that the speed of light should vary with different height zones. Also he frequently says that there can not be any Absolute in the usual sense - which is usually meant for hierarchical systems but nevertheless true for anything. FWIW since I absorbed that some 25 years ago I then made my private prediction as a physicist that one day we will find out about relativity of light speed in vacuum - I should have bet on this :-)

However since this news remind me of the cold fusion hype as well I decided that from a professional POV it is better to keep the feet quiet until this is solidly confirmed. Laymen are allowed to be enthused already now ;-)

Bottom line: there is only one nature, and if it is true that there is an underlying common wisdom in all great religions an philosophies then this can only be if these principles are derived from nature itself (however visible or invisible that nature may be). In that way honest science can not help but gyrate towards these principles too ... if it is really done honestly, throughout and in-depth.

Here is a good layman's overview. It was in Science Magazine Dec. 2 (I would have posted it sooner - behind on my reading). What it boils down to is that superluminal travel is very, very unlikely. This is a must-read to understand the experiment and the issues.

SUPERLUMINAL NEUTRINOS

It is instructive to note the difficulty they have to overcome. It is a very complex measurement. The issues are brought out well.

Note the statement that SN 1987A arrival of neutrinos would have occurred 4 years earlier than the Light if Opera is correct. That definitely didn't happen. Not even close.

The actual point is that it is too common to see the "arm-chair meta-physics" side of the population jump into the highly speculative side of science just to give themselves a sense of validity. It creates an easy target for critics to conclude "proof" for the "group of wackos" attacks.

  We can do better here.

RSS

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2019   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service