User Answers

FASTER THAN LIGHT EXPERIMENT TO BE REPEATED

Remember that experiment at CERN a few weeks back that scientists reported measuring neutrinos traveling at faster-than-light velocities that had everyone talking about a possible revolution in physics? Well, back then I urged everyone to be very cautious about that whole idea, for a variety of reasons, not the least being that it would have to be repeated - again and again in fact - and more careful measurements taken.

Well, the ever vigilant phys.org is reporting that they are preparing to do just that:

Scientists take fresh look at \'faster-than-light\' experiment

This excites me for a number of reasons. First, the way the new experiment is being described as being set up, it will allow more accurate measurements to be taken. This is the normal process of science. If this experiment should falsify the previous results, more experiments will be performed to confirm those results. And, by the same token, should it confirm the previous results, again, more experiments will have to be performed, with appropriate modifications to see if the reported faster-than-light results of the first experiment are dependent on any other factors. This is the normal process of science, and it is an exciting one to watch.

Just a caution though, to those who would view the latter result as a falsification of Einstein. It would, in my opinion, be rather an indicator that relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, is a subset of a larger phenomenon, just as Newtonian mechanics is a subset within relativity. To be sure, confirmation of the previous faster-than-light results will send scientists back to their equations, and then will begin the fascinating process of proposing new models, doing more experiments, and so on. But we should not think that the edifice of physics will come crashing down. There have been a number of theories out there for years predicting super-luminal phenomena. One need only think of Heim theory for example.

Part of me hopes that the previous faster-than-light results will be confirmed, for I like to watch  a good and lively science debate, and I suspect that the debate, like Einstein's original relativity papers, will be lively indeed. One need only consider how lively (though largely hidden in various international science journals and papers) the debate on so-called "Cold fusion" has been. Virtually banned in this country, the Japan Journal of Applied Physics has published a number of experimental papers.  So we're in for a treat if the previous result is confirmed by more experiments. The real fun will be to watch the proposed models to explain the phenomenon.

Keep your fingers crossed folks, and hope that the previous results will be confirmed, for then the fun will start, as new models are proposed!

 

25 thoughts on “FASTER THAN LIGHT EXPERIMENT TO BE REPEATED”

  1. Speaking of Cold Fusion I read there is a Italian scientist who has already has a working reactor and it is ready to go his first constomer the US,Navy for powering their submarines. As for the possibility of a faster than light particle being found this reminds me of the scientist that proved heavy than air flight was impossable two months before the Wright Brothers historic flights. Einstein has been like Aristotle used to push certain agendas that fited in with ideas the elites were pushing then as now and the light barrier has become a mindless dogma that again propt up their views about the universe. By the way have been watching the new season of the program Universe on the History 2 cable channel one of the latest episode brought to mind Immanuel Velikosky.

  2. To Citizen Quasar:

    Quote: ”When your arguments concerning mysticism are all boiled down, they reveal you to be nothing but a faithist at heart.” Unquote.

    Coming from an admitted believer in the Darwinian dogma this is just one of the contradictions you keep foisting on us. But, on the other hand, refusing to read books that some good folks on here recommended will keep you in your closed system forever. You will never understand what multi-level phenomenon Dr Farrell is talking about when he’s using the term ”alchemy”.

    Is it just me or are there other readers who cannot shake the feeling that you might have been sent here with a purpose? Just my opinion and I would love to be convinced of the contrary.

    Before starting a new rant about Darwin please read up on genetic homeostasis. If nothing new – or correct – comes in, all that goes out will be the same old – or incorrect – stuff. Happens to all of us if we don’t watch out.

    1. Karl- You know the old saying, ‘there is no such thing as a coincidence’. There are times that I feel like i’ve know Dr. Farrell all my life… and perhaps longer.

      db

  3. Hey Quasar,
    You’re giving science a bad review through the use of
    your moniker and rash comments.
    Joseph is smarter than all of you put together and
    seems to be a very fine person;
    someone who would go out his way for the benefit
    of others as he does in his writing to share and
    enlighten all of us on what he finds in his research and
    readily stands up for himself.

    Have you ever written a book?
    Done any post grad type research?
    I don’t suppose you’ve ever had a migraine (?)

    Joseph,
    an overseas friend of mine introduced me
    to your first serious work, “The Giza Death Star Trilogy”
    and it amazed me. I have the deepest respect for you.
    I hope you get completely healthy again soon.
    I devour everything you write.
    Many, many thanks.
    🙂

      1. Cheer up and hang in there.
        A beautiful little birdie whispered to me
        his secret….
        Things WILL get better.
        Even for me 🙂

  4. Why do we even NEED faster-than-light-travel when we have those
    Quantum (anti-gravity) instantaneous …’saucers.’ ?

    Well shut my mouth!
    I forgot that is a very BIG SECRET.
    Yes, kiddies, those are ours;
    shared with the Nazis, of course.

    You all missed me ! I know you did !!

  5. Great post. I agree about waiting to see how it turns out. The repeated experimentation is what makes science such a slow process, if done correctly. No matter how advanced our science gets, it will always be billions of years behind the Universe, struggling to catch up.

    The only thing I would add is that I would refer to it as the “ideal,” “proper” or “healthy” expression of science as opposed to the “normal” process. The normal process of science today, in the sense of the most common or typical, is highly corrupt, deeply political, and riddled with error and egotism.

    Personally, I think the “light barrier” is much like the sound barrier – it only appears to be a barrier because of our limitations in technology and understanding.

    1. Interesting article, Arend. Some points to consider:

      What we know as Maxwell’s equations are not really Maxwell’s – they were emasculated by Heaviside and Lorentz, introducing limitations and errors not present in the original quarternion set. Some believe that they were working under orders to eliminate some of the effects demanded by the original equations, as these would lead to such things as anti-gravity and free energy.

      Since it was Lorentz whose transform also introduced the restriction of the speed of light, there is some possibility of a thread supporting those who believe it was intentional.

      Also, I think Einstein’s relativity was introduced with much fanfare and support in order to overshadow Whittaker’s 1903 and 1904 papers which reveal revolutionary properties of electromagnetic energy which would also point to possibilities not present in our current mainstream physics.

      Both the original Maxwell equations and Whittaker’s papers create the basis for a radically different physics than we have today, and tend to support Tesla’s observations and experiments.

  6. I think the great thing about this experiment, in the outcome that it shows a faster than light phenomenon, is that it will be a wake-up call for many old and young scientist. It would render as fashionable the questioning of our current dogmas.

  7. I have been listening to your interviews on ‘The Byte Show.’ I have been listening to the ‘Dirty Secrets’ series. You mention alchemy in this series a couple of times, yet you define it differently each time. Also, you attempt to defend mysticism as if it is based on reason instead of faith, as if there is some validity to or/and practical application of things such as Christianity.

    Given your excellent knowledge of physics and history and your fine analysis of the Nazis and the Giza pyramids, I was so disgusted that you are a mystic that I turned off the interview. When your arguments concerning mysticism are all boiled down, they reveal you to be nothing but a faithist at heart.

    Alchemy, which you refuse to define, is your buzz word for faith. Alchemy is your buzz word for the fact that you are not going to provide facts. This aspect of your character, your reliance on faith, saddens me as I had hoped that you are more objective.

    What could I expect from somebody who attended Oral Roberts University…at a graduate level no less? At least you didn’t attend Bob Jones.

      1. Joseph, can you share the links the robot is referring to? I’d like to listen to your views on stuff that cannot computed.

      2. Nothing like ignoring three information packed paragraphs containing one hundred seventy words and addressing only the fourth containing twenty-four.

        “Ad hominem” or “philosophic detection?”

        No, sir. I don’t think so. Perhaps I am wrong.

        1. Ad Hominem remains ad hominem Citizen Quasar. Your remarks were uncivil and uncalled for. I think with a little reasoned reflection, you will see why. As for my response, after being viciously attacked with the standard stock-in-trade of the ideologue, the ad hominem, why should I respond? If your question had been framed in the form of a civil discourse, I might have attempted to give an answer. But instead of a question, giving me the opportunity to “revise and extend my remarks” (and I can hardly remember every Byte Show to begin with), you simply attacked me by questioning where I went to school, rather like the “Christians” who have attacked me for being an Illuminatus because I went to Oxford. I am happy, as time permits me, to discuss anything with anyone. But I do not respond well to attacks and insults, and neither would you.

          1. You are right in that I did close my comment with an intentional insult. (Though I don’t see it as an ad hominem; not that that matters. ) Inasmuch as I should have sought clarity, perhaps by sending you a personal email before condemning your views on your daily blog, and I needlessly insulted you, I do offer my apology. Here and now this is about all I can do.

            In the meantime, I will continue to listen to ‘The Byte Show’ interviews (which, somewhat oddly, won’t load since I mentioned it in my comment above) and other interviews on the internet until I have the whole picture. I will, of course, continue to read your books, the ones about the Nazis, the Cosmic War, etc. anyway.

            Also, when I have enough information to properly form my questions, I may drop you an email.

          2. Wait. I’ve still got and in my craw.

            A few days ago (and I just looked and can’t find it) I commented on one of your posts and I asked for your definition of “alchemy.” Specifically I asked for an integrative taxonomic concept (genus) and a differential taxonomic concept (species).

            You responded by saying that you have explained your definition of “alchemy” in a number of interviews and writings and that if I want to know then I can go read or listen to find out your definition of “alchemy.”.

            As you now say “If your question had been framed in the form of a civil discourse, I might have attempted to give an answer,” I ask you again for a definition in accordance with the above guidelines, framed in the form of civil discourse.

            Now I have submitted an apology to you. “Perhaps” you will give me an answer to my question straight away.

    1. You must be pretty PHYSICAL FIT!

      I know I am despite my age.

      I exercise a lot.

      I am always PUSHING my luck. I also get my blood circulating by JUMPING to conclusions. STRETCHING the truth helps keep the blood circulating. (I almost forgot – I do a lot of SHOVELING back a the farm?)

      Maybe one day I will be able to enter the Marathon — if I don’t drop dead from all this exercise, HA,Ha!

      Have a good day FOLKS!

      1. Quazar — TEXTUALITY IS MOST IMPORTANT!

        Haven’t you been listening or reading the posts in here. He said he was very disgusted with the educational system here so he transferred or moved to England. So instead of thinking Farrell as a closet fundamentalist you should have picked up on that clue and listened care-fully for some insider’s slant.

        Anyway —-in semiotics or literary theory it is often believed that ALL READING IS REREADING!

        Once a book is released —-GOODBYE BABY! It’s fair game for any kind of crazy interpretation it may have. It even might make the author a multi-millionare if it turns out to be some kind of ‘Black Swan” event or hit on the public market!.

        While I wish Farrell has more means to spread the word I do like that personal touch. Seeing his kitchen in the background is kind of homey! (if he’s selling out to Oral Roberts then he aint doing a good job, ha, ha.)

        A relative amount of success hasn’t spoiled Farrell yet. Would lots and lots of money do the job?

        I don’t know? I would like to think it wouldn’t. My INTUITIONS say it wouldn’t.

        You know what? Why doesn’t SOMEONE give me lots and lots and lots of that GREEN STUFF and I’ll FIND OUT FOR YOU.

        In BRAZIL of Course, ha, ha!

    2. You have disagreements, present them and stick to the facts. Attacking people personally is beneath contempt and not worthy of you. We’re all trying to understand this amazing place we find ourselves in and to try to figure out why we’re here. Until you have complete knowledge, you should try to remain a bit more humble lest you reveal to the world more than you’d want it to know about you.

  8. Maybe an hour or so spent watching “Stars in an electric universe” by Wal Thornhill would help many of us to reassess the importance or not of Einstein and Newton in today’s world as we experience it.

  9. Robert Barricklow

    “Cold Fusion” is one example that surfaced, a tip of an ‘iceberg’ that is purposely sinking titanic ideas before they each any shores of media recognition, let alone peer review.

    What were those deep currents, under the surface between J.P. Morgan(Inc.) and Tesla, all about?

  10. I heard about this and I am looking forward to seeing what happens.

    Speaking of experiments, perhaps you, Dr. Farrell, with your considerable knowledge of physics, and keen mind in general,will propose an experiment to confirm alchemy as a method of gaining knowledge, as a valid premise for truth.

    What do you say?

Comments are closed.