I stand corrected. The author of this message still has some explaining to do, though I imagine we'll never see it.
--- In [email protected], "tmforlife108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I posted Farrok's letter. I'm sorry if the wrong impression was given. The > letter was from > a gov in the UK. Farrokh simply forwarded it to me. > > Daniel Jeffers > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:39:05 -0600 > From: Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re:Re: Latest from Farrokh > > Did Farrokh write the passage quoted beneath yours? > > > on 12/4/05 5:27 PM, at_man_and_brahman at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > I respect Farrokh's stand. I'm a little curious, > > though, about some of his remarks here. > > > > First, he is apparently of the Brigante school, > > thinking that the tomfoolery in the Movement > > is purely the fault of its administrators and not > > of the founder. > > > > I have an undergraduate background in physics > > and math, from MIU during the Hagelin years, > > and I am a long way from being able to touch > > Hagelin's level of math. It's unclear which works > > of Hagelin's Farrokh is criticizing: his two TM > > monographs ("Is Consciousness the Unified Field?" > > and "Restructuring Physics from Its Foundation in > > Light of Maharishi's Vedic Science") or his published > > high-energy physics papers. > > > > The former are not particularly mathematics-based, > > so a series of courses in math is not really the right > > foundation to critique them; a long series of > > graduate-level courses in high-energy physics, > > for which the math would be a prerequisite, would > > be, however. It doesn't sound as though Farrokh > > has taken such classes. Even if he had, the > > monographs do not attempt to construct a > > finite unified field theory, a central point in > > Farrokh's critique. > > > > Hagelin's published physics papers, similarly, do > > not attempt to construct a finite unified theory, > > nor do they discuss Vedic science. Hagelin's most > > celebrated mainstream work was in grand unified > > theory and superstrings. > > > > Maharishi has an undergrad background in physics, > > at least a working knowledge of "Maharishi's Vedic > > Science," and the experience of discussing physics > > with Hagelin for decades. If Farrokh is correct that > > Maharishi is an intellectual superstar, wouldn't > > Maharishi himself be the best judge of whether > > Hagelin is using his theories correctly? > > > > What does Farrokh think of Schanbacher's work? > > Clements'? > > > > Most notably, given that Farrokh has constructed > > "wonderfully elegant solutions" to the problems > > of "the dimensionality of space and the origin > > of the symmetries of the Standard Model," it's > > just a matter of time until he wins multiple > > Nobel prizes. > > > > That's pretty cool. You get on with your bad > > self, Farrokh! > > > > In this battle of crap vs crap, I think that > > Farrokh still has the upper hand, 'cause he > > makes sense in just about every other way. > > > > --- In [email protected], "tmforlife108" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> My own approach is somewhat different. I applaud those who take a > stand > >> against the crap and the nonsense we all have to endure within the > >> movement but I have chosen to take a stand against a different type > of > >> crap and the nonsense. I realised some time ago that the supposed > >> scientific analysis of the relationships between modern science and > >> Vedic science was in fact pseudo-scientific rubbish. Rather than > turn > >> around and walk away in disgust I resolved to do something about it. > So > >> I put myself through a series of courses in mathematics so that I > could > >> acquire the skills required. My reasoning being that although the > >> present analysis is total nonsense, if the insights of Vedic science > as > >> proposed by Maharishi are true then it ought to be possible to use > those > >> insights to guide one to solutions to the deepest problems of modern > >> physics. I've discovered that this inspiration is correct. But in a > very > >> unexpected way, or rather perhaps in a way that should have been > >> expected for anyone who has had any contact with Maharishi's > knowledge. > >> When cast in mathematical terms the insight that the ultimate > reality is > >> of transcendental nature suggests that there can be no finite > Unified > >> Field Theory. Also the insight that this transcendental reality can > be > >> experienced as if it were a sequence of experiences happening one > after > >> the other, as expressed in the Apurusheya Bhashya, has very > interesting > >> mathematical consequences. Taking this point of view, then some of > the > >> deepest problems of modern physics such as the dimensionality of > space > >> and the origin of the symmetries of the Standard Model have > wonderfully > >> elegant solutions. I recently presented a paper outlining these > ideas at > >> a conference in Europe, (where I took prize for best lecture), and > this > >> initial paper will be published next year. Though it's nice to get > some > >> appreciation from experts who are utterly disdainful of John > Hagelin, > >> much remains to be done. So it will be some time yet before a > complete > >> analysis will be possible. > >> > >> The interesting thing is that one can use use Maharishi's knowledge > to > >> solve these problems and hence give the knowledge true scientific > >> credibility while at the same time demolishing just about everything > >> John Hagelin has done. One wonders at the intellectual ineptitude > that > >> has allowed his ideas to gain credence within the movement. The more > I > >> study this field the more I find that his ideas are packed solid > with > >> errors of reasoning and elementary maths. I know of many > intelligent > >> people within the movement who have their doubts about John > Hagelin's > >> ideas and even more doubts about Tony Nader's ideas but fail to > speak > >> out for fear of punishment. However I do not think that he and > people > >> like him are in any way inherently bad people, it's just that the > >> organisational structure of the movement discourages intelligent > >> thought. It is the culture of fear within the movement that is > inimical > >> to genuine scientific enquiry and ultimately that culture of fear > has > >> its basis in Maharishi himself. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Or go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > and click 'Join This Group!' > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________ > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
