[FairfieldLife] Re: OPERA neutrino anomaly?
X, Lots of agreement with ya, and ya instructed me on a couple of nuances of word usage too, so thanks for that. I'll comment, but also I'll be snipping the stuff for which I have no immediate response. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: You: By radiation-less space I am assuming you mean truly *empty* space without electromagnetic radiation passing through it, or particles (like cosmic 'rays'). In this universe, there is the observation called the Lamb shift, indicating virtual photons come into being and out again in the electromagnetic quantum field. Without objects or particles, waves, or gravity, there is no handle you can attach to space to give it any sense of dimension. If you examine spiritual language, it is really analogical, with words for physical phenomena such as 'light' representing spirit or consciousness, and words such as 'great' implying size dimensions bigger than some other aspect that is being talked about, utilising the concepts of non-empty space to convey an idea. Me: The analogy of light is consciousness, seems apropos to me solely for communicating about the small self.which I consider to be merely a history of a tiny location in space/time in the ultimate matrix of radiant manifestation -- every THING to me is easily explained as radiance of some sort. Identification seems to be a case of universal awareness being inexplicably anchored in time/space such that the content of a particular mind is mistakenly thought to be localized product-of-the-ego instead of an emergent phenomenon of the whole of creation. To me empty space is just that...empty, except that our very presence un-emptifies space by deluding one that that which is in space tells us the size of spacewhich I call a delusion because it seldom considers the actual amount of space being traversed and instead insists that the cardinal points designate a measurement of space. However, acceleration shows that the cardinal points remain stationary relative to each other despite the fact that more space is being traversed. A five gallon bucket doesn't contain a set amount of space...we have to stipulate the speed of that bucket relative to the background of the entire universe. How far must I paddle to get across a 100 foot wide river that's flowing at 10mph? Obviously not merely 100 feet, since I would have to paddle upstream a little in addition to my across stream efforts to create the illusion that I was crossing the river perpendicularly. The distance I cover is far greater than 100 feet. Just so, we need to know the absolute speed of a bucket to know how much space it is holding PER TIME UNIT. A five gallon bucket simply cannot be made absolute -- it doesn't hold five gallons of space. You: It would seem our concept of time is based on objects in space that are moving, and that differential gives us the feeling of progression. Have you ever sat in a car at a stop light, and not quite paying attention, the light changes and the car next to you speeds ahead, and suddenly you think you are rolling backward even though you are not moving on the street? Me: Of course I have had that experience, and a person floating alone in empty space cannot tell if he is moving or not. Just so, a person residing as the small self cannot tell if the motions of the mind are real or illusory. Only a bird's eye view would inform the driver which car is stopped and which ones are moving; just so, only a view from the Self can reveal the relativity of thought. You: The idea of Self, as opposed to self with the small 's' seems to have the purpose of setting up a goal in the mind, a goal that is greater than what and where we are now, even though where and what we are now is in fact what is always so. Me: I agree that language perforce hustles us into polarities and that what is, has always been what is, and that our thinking about reality must necessarily be incomplete ala Godel's theory. You: The identification with ideation is the killer. Me: Nothing can be killed, but yeah. You: Even knowing this intimately intellectually does not break the chains. Me: I would agree, but I'm half convinced that my clarity is far from that which would be needed to see if clarity can solely break the incarnational bond. Could be that intellectual contemplation can so consistently prove that nothing is good or evil but thinking makes it so, that the mind let's go of the notion that its contents have any existential basis -- after tens of thousands of experimental datapoints have been collected. You: Meditation, solitude, or having someone around who knows how to push your buttons in a way to get you to experience through the identification seem to be the greatest aids in breaking the chains that hold us in thrall with our thinking. Me: I've been thoroughly punished by life for the crime of thinking I
[FairfieldLife] Re: OPERA neutrino anomaly?
Duveyoung, I find this rather an intriguing response. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@... wrote: X, Not so sure I can defend the equation. If Curtis pipes in, I'm doomed, but, but, but . . . let's see what I come up with. To me, radiation-less space has the quality of being almost not there -- and it would be tough to say more, but consider how everyone feels they have a significant clarity about time's various attributes or at least most folks have had a lot of experience with mentally chewing on the concept of time and its various presentations. Who hasn't experienced time's relativity? Eternity in an hour., and all that. But try to get someone to talk about the qualities of radiation-less space and how these qualities are discernible in daily life, and we hear crickets out to the horizon. What an interesting sentence. It feels very Zen. By radiation-less space I am assuming you mean truly *empty* space without electromagnetic radiation passing through it, or particles (like cosmic 'rays'). In this universe, there is the observation called the Lamb shift, indicating virtual photons come into being and out again in the electromagnetic quantum field. Without objects or particles, waves, or gravity, there is no handle you can attach to space to give it any sense of dimension. If you examine spiritual language, it is really analogical, with words for physical phenomena such as 'light' representing spirit or consciousness, and words such as 'great' implying size dimensions bigger than some other aspect that is being talked about, utilising the concepts of non-empty space to convey an idea. We all feel we can (by some metric, however so relative,) know about time's passing, but, if we accelerate a person towards the speed of light, at no point along that journey do we expect one to say something like: I feel a huge increase in the amount of space whizzing between my atoms, not the usual ho-hum amount I usually feel from the various vectors I am participating in, such as the motion of the earth, or the solar system's motion around the galactic core, etc. Astronauts have yet to report anything about space moving faster through themlike that. Yet that is precisely the truth if Einstein is correct when he insists that we forever marry space-and-time. It would seem our concept of time is based on objects in space that are moving, and that differential gives us the feeling of progression. Have you ever sat in a car at a stop light, and not quite paying attention, the light changes and the car next to you speeds ahead, and suddenly you think you are rolling backward even though you are not moving on the street? Unknown too is the Self -- which the scriptures of the world seem to agree is beyond any instrumentality's grasping, be it physical or conceptual. The idea of Self, as opposed to self with the small 's' seems to have the purpose of setting up a goal in the mind, a goal that is greater than what and where we are now, even though where and what we are now is in fact what is always so. In attempting to visualise empty space, which is really impossible to do, you eliminate everything that creates any sense of size, duration, and even meaning in life. Something that is static has no progression or sense of change. To sense that life is even just dull and boring, let alone interesting and fun, requires a sense of dimension and duration, as you intimate in the following sentence: The clockwork whirring of the mind's gears is, as is time's passage, perceivable to all, such that we all feel ourselves to be quite intimate with the passage of time due to the metronome ticking of objects of consciousness as they pass through the mind. Commonly, and spiritually alarming, most of us are in the thrall of thoughts and identify with them as if they are bits of self on parade. Disturb someone's thoughts, and it can be as jarring to them as keying the side of their car might be -- such is the power of one's deluded identification with ideation. Yes. The identification with ideation is the killer. Even knowing this intimately intellectually does not break the chains. Meditation, solitude, or having someone around who knows how to push your buttons in a way to get you to experience through the identification seem to be the greatest aids in breaking the chains that hold us in thrall with our thinking. It took me more than a third of century to finally have a major breakthrough in this. I was alone, minding my own business when it happened spontaneously. But it has taken some time to get comfortable with this new perception of thought and its relationship with experience, with some difficult bumps along the way. And this redefines sense of self and even Self. It is as if the mystery of existence is solved without the mystery going away. The only way to win thermonuclear war is
[FairfieldLife] Re: OPERA neutrino anomaly?
X, Not so sure I can defend the equation. If Curtis pipes in, I'm doomed, but, but, but . . . let's see what I come up with. To me, radiation-less space has the quality of being almost not there -- and it would be tough to say more, but consider how everyone feels they have a significant clarity about time's various attributes or at least most folks have had a lot of experience with mentally chewing on the concept of time and its various presentations. Who hasn't experienced time's relativity? Eternity in an hour., and all that. But try to get someone to talk about the qualities of radiation-less space and how these qualities are discernible in daily life, and we hear crickets out to the horizon. We all feel we can (by some metric, however so relative,) know about time's passing, but, if we accelerate a person towards the speed of light, at no point along that journey do we expect one to say something like: I feel a huge increase in the amount of space whizzing between my atoms, not the usual ho-hum amount I usually feel from the various vectors I am participating in, such as the motion of the earth, or the solar system's motion around the galactic core, etc. Astronauts have yet to report anything about space moving faster through themlike that. Yet that is precisely the truth if Einstein is correct when he insists that we forever marry space-and-time. Unknown too is the Self -- which the scriptures of the world seem to agree is beyond any instrumentality's grasping, be it physical or conceptual. The clockwork whirring of the mind's gears is, as is time's passage, perceivable to all, such that we all feel ourselves to be quite intimate with the passage of time due to the metronome ticking of objects of consciousness as they pass through the mind. Commonly, and spiritually alarming, most of us are in the thrall of thoughts and identify with them as if they are bits of self on parade. Disturb someone's thoughts, and it can be as jarring to them as keying the side of their car might be -- such is the power of one's deluded identification with ideation. The only way to win thermonuclear war is to never play that game -- same deal with winning the thought wardon't start playing with the tar baby. The hardest part about spiritual evolution is that we can have no sense of any attributes about Self, and therefore we cannot know if we (our small selves) are evolving into greater resonance with it -- just as an increase in the amount of space flowing through our atoms is imperceptible but real nonetheless. Obviously faith is a response this issue of unknowability. Again, this is a comparative analogy, and I like the exercise, but in actuality, space is, however so subtly, part of that which is manifest, and therefore cannot be, as no other thing can be either, instructive about Self, but the study of space is evolutionary for the small self such that clarity about space, silence, love, etc. can bring the mind to lesser states of anxiety, such that, with the mental cacophony reduced in intensity by meditation of many sorts, be expected to be, however so little, more prepared for ascertaining just exactly why the small self is necessarily an artifact of Self and unworthy of identification -- which would be narcissistic sin. Such clarity can be expected to max out when identification becomes universal and beyond universe. Tell Shakespeare: To be beyond being or non-being cannot be questioned. Tell Descartes: Amness precedes ego, and amness is an artifact of silence. Tell Godel: Say hi for me if you see Nisargatta. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: The problem most folks have with relativity is that they don't grok space nearly as much as they do time. Same deal with them when it comes to seeing the importance of Self when everyone goes around strutting as an expert on thoughts. Edg Duveyoung, could you elaborate a bit on the second sentence? I may be dense, and do not quite get the gist of what you are saying. As an analogy, it does not quite seem to sync with the first sentence, so either I am unclear, or your sentence is too vague, and if you respond, you can let me know which you feel it is. I get that it is easier to visualise time distortion than the distortion of space, which I believe most probably visualise as being very rectilinear and stable. Most seem to not appreciate there is a distinction between the concept of 'self' as opposed to 'Self', as 'Self' is not a commonly known concept in the United States at least. I have friends for whom this idea makes no sense whatever. But it only makes sense from a certain perspective. 'Self' versus 'self' does not really mean anything if you discover what these terms are all about, because they
[FairfieldLife] Re: OPERA neutrino anomaly?
The problem most folks have with relativity is that they don't grok space nearly as much as they do time. Same deal with them when it comes to seeing the importance of Self when everyone goes around strutting as an expert on thoughts. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: Do you believe ONA is real? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPERA_neutrino_anomaly http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php Those weird faster-than-light neutrinos that CERN thought they saw last month may have just gotten slowed down to a speed that'll keep them from completely destroying physics as we know it. In an ironic twist, the very theory that these neutrinos would have disproved may explain exactly what happened. [...] Relativity is really, really weird. It says that things like distance and time can change depending on how you look at them, especially if you're moving very fast relative to something else. In the case of the neutrino experiment, we've got two things to think about: the detectors on the ground that measure where and when the neutrinos depart and arrive, and the GPS satellites up in space that we're using as a basis for these measurements. Since the satellites are orbiting the Earth and moving way faster than the detectors, we say that they're in a different reference frame, which just means that the motion of the satellites is significantly different than the motion of the Earth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: OPERA neutrino anomaly?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@... wrote: The problem most folks have with relativity is that they don't grok space nearly as much as they do time. Same deal with them when it comes to seeing the importance of Self when everyone goes around strutting as an expert on thoughts. Edg Duveyoung, could you elaborate a bit on the second sentence? I may be dense, and do not quite get the gist of what you are saying. As an analogy, it does not quite seem to sync with the first sentence, so either I am unclear, or your sentence is too vague, and if you respond, you can let me know which you feel it is. I get that it is easier to visualise time distortion than the distortion of space, which I believe most probably visualise as being very rectilinear and stable. Most seem to not appreciate there is a distinction between the concept of 'self' as opposed to 'Self', as 'Self' is not a commonly known concept in the United States at least. I have friends for whom this idea makes no sense whatever. But it only makes sense from a certain perspective. 'Self' versus 'self' does not really mean anything if you discover what these terms are all about, because they are part of the mythos of a particular set of spiritual paths, and only have relevance for part of that trek when one is under the influence of the dream.
[FairfieldLife] Re: OPERA neutrino anomaly?
The faster than light finding by scientist at CERN could be due to a lensing effect of the soil and rock that the particle had to traverse from CERN to the lab in Italy. IOW, relative to particle's clock time, the particle is moving at the speed of light. But relative to the lab clock, the neutrino appeared to have exceeded the speed light. This means that the neutrino particle had to work harder to get to its destination through rock and soil along the way. The resulting effect is like the bending of light when it goes through a glass of water. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: Do you believe ONA is real? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPERA_neutrino_anomaly
[FairfieldLife] Re: OPERA neutrino anomaly?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: Do you believe ONA is real? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPERA_neutrino_anomaly http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php Those weird faster-than-light neutrinos that CERN thought they saw last month may have just gotten slowed down to a speed that'll keep them from completely destroying physics as we know it. In an ironic twist, the very theory that these neutrinos would have disproved may explain exactly what happened. [...] Relativity is really, really weird. It says that things like distance and time can change depending on how you look at them, especially if you're moving very fast relative to something else. In the case of the neutrino experiment, we've got two things to think about: the detectors on the ground that measure where and when the neutrinos depart and arrive, and the GPS satellites up in space that we're using as a basis for these measurements. Since the satellites are orbiting the Earth and moving way faster than the detectors, we say that they're in a different reference frame, which just means that the motion of the satellites is significantly different than the motion of the Earth.
