Replies to This Discussion

ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on February 24, 2012 at 1:23am

right.

if you have ever seen any large-scale Physics lab --- the number of miles/km of cables running everywhere, some getting pulled through trays/ducts to update some (even minor) piece of equipment a year later than when all the other stuff got put in....  every time you are off a few feet -- there go several ns

They are all aware of this, and actually do incredibly good jobs. really, really tough.

ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on February 23, 2012 at 7:32pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBnkITI2nLM&feature=related

Not even the Corrigan Brothers and Pete Creighton were fooled...

Permalink Reply by Michael A. Williams on February 23, 2012 at 8:40pm

Since I started the initial discussion on this subject in another discussion, I guess it's de rigueur that I chime in with some kind of response.

As I stated in one of my comments back then, it very possible that this particular experiment, with this measuring equipment with these particular scientists will not pan out. Of course, even this re-check is still not finished as the last sentence in the article states "New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis."

How and why the initial experiments became public I'm not sure. We were told these were conservative scientists who had gone over the data numerous times for months, checking and re-checking and re-re-checking some more for any possible errors. I don't think the lay public has been told the whole back story on this.

Who knows what can happen in 100 or 200 years? What about 1,000 years? A 100 years ago space travel was deemed impossible and anyone talking about computers and the Internet would have been either scoffed at or put in an insane asylum.

What puzzles me a little is why some people seem to be delighted and celebrating that this "faster than light" discovery seems to have been disproved for now. I would think that folks, at least in the metaphysical fields, would welcome great breakthroughs and be slightly disappointed that it seemingly hasn't panned out this time. Orthodox scientists I can see breathing easier, as they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

John, you asked what books the quotes from Max Planck I used before came from. They were either from his "Where Is Science Going?" and "Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers" or both.

Here's two more I like:

"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

"Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it."  - Max Planck

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/max_planck.html#ixzz1nG...

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/max_planck.html#ixzz1nG...

ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on February 23, 2012 at 10:44pm

Michael - you said --

"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."

 

your comment: This is not a practical joke item in a Tabloid mag.

But publishing it was nearly a joke --- just wasn't in a tabloid mag.  The Science community has gone somewhat nuts with Physics by Press Release. (I posted a pro-con debate in this group about the Physics’ community squabbling. You might want to read it).

The press did not cover the experiment in a manner that would 1) allow the common reader to see how easily the results could be wrong and 2) that prior measurements, much more accurate, had been done already and basically proved the result to be in error. New Physics was (and is) a very slim chance on this one.

 

This is bad science, press and politics. No one wins. People get confused. This is true even when they still may be right.

 

Theosophists need to recognize that published results which "Validate" a pet Occult Science should not be jumped upon so eagerly.

(as in the above: "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" )  

 

Note that I am making two points we all need to remember:

1) Scientists stating non peer reviewed science in the public press are often after 1) fame,  2) money/research grant support,  3) trying to create dis-information, 4) stating a new and interesting result and 5) trying to calm and clarify some research "leak" - damage control. (and a few other possibilities.)

 

2) We, as Theosophists, should be very skeptical. We are our own worst enemy when it comes to keeping the name of theosophy respected.

I include myself in both part 1) and 2) 

Permalink Reply by Michael A. Williams on February 24, 2012 at 12:18am

Thanks, John, for a little more clarification on how the Press misrepresented the reporting of the initial results and/or some scientists could have "jumped the gun" also.Your remarks are well worth considering.

I did write what you quoted and stand by it, on a long term visionary basis. But, I was not writing in a Journal for publication, scientific or metaphysical, but in an off-the-cuff manner in a casual discussion. If I'd been writing an article for the "official record," I would have worded things differently and added references, etc.

For the record here, I am Not a "Theosophist." I've never been a member of the TS and don't intend to ever join. I respect the TS for it's role it played in the metaphysical/spiritual world in the past and it's contributions, but I've never claimed to represent it.

I happen to like "visionary speculation,' and enjoy it in others. I don't feel bound to "toe a party line," put down by materialistic skeptics or spiritual dogmatists. My views are my own and are not intended to reflect upon the TS, this site or any members here.

Anyway, I don't have time to go-and-round on all this. Frankly, I'd forgotten all about this issue and was moving along on other, more important matters to me until it was brought up again. I've said all I want to, perhaps others want to chime in.

ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on February 24, 2012 at 12:37am

I didn't mean to use the quote in a manner to hold you to anything...  just a reference point for a thought or two.

Oh -

Actually,  most Theosophists are not members of any TS, have never been members of the/any TS and would never join any TS. Any specific TS (doctrinal) member actually is only a very small section of a very specific and narrow type of Theosophist. I would expect most Theosophists do not consider themselves Theosophists due to the large misunderstanding of what the term means.

anyway - always glad to see your posts!!

Permalink Reply by Michael A. Williams on February 24, 2012 at 9:38am

Thanks, John, and that wraps it up for now. Best to you!

ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on June 20, 2012 at 10:38pm

Well, the Gaga Physics involving the "Faster than Light Neutrinos" is basically finished. The claimed result, which had already been proven untenable over decades of physics experiments, has taken two researchers down with it (last March in a no-confidence vote). the article is at

Results Overwhelm Hype

the leaders No-confidence vote story is
No Confidence Vote

The moral, if there is one, is that "things are what they are" despite wishful thinking and attempts to alter/force a fact when it is actually a mistake. Hence - if you believe in "Physics cover-ups" or that scientists can create situations to hide a fact they do not like...  sorry.
That stuff can make good books and lectures, but you have to ultimately demonstrate it, or just shut the quack up.