> I normally buy my books though the ""Book Depository" in England,, I like
> their world wide free shipping.. either that I send you the money you
> sign it then send it to me..
>
Once we've printed a few, I can do that. We're still on target for a
release date on 21-Dec-2011, but I doubt it will be sooner. Also--and
this is, of course, for everyone--my publisher and I are thinking
about whether or not to plan a 'launch' for the book. That is, a
public party to celebrate the publication. The 'hitch', though, is
that, before we plan it, we need to have enough people to make it
worthwhile. You are ALL, of course, invited and it would be held,
most likely, in Stratford-upon-Avon. I don't have a date, yet, for
it; but, if, as I said, we have enough of a response to interest in
attending, we'll plan it. And, I suspect we would try to plan it for
a date when MOST people could attend. Please, let me know what you
(all) think!!
> It is true it repeats itself regularly.. CERN is not looking for a red
> face..
>
But are they looking around dimensional corners? I suspect not. This
'revelation', of course, doesn't completely throw out the old
textbooks like so many think. It has NO bearing on Einstein's energy
equation, E=MC^2, for example. It only means that C is NOT the speed
limit we thought is was and, of course, it implies that tachyons are,
most likely, well...more likely. The existence of tachyons is
predicted by the original 26-dimensional String Theory and THAT is the
basis for MY work, so, I'm not at all displeased with evidence that
points towards tachyon-like particles. If anything, it's another
feather in my cap. LOL!!
> I do not see them rushing to build a second CERN they are a little beyond
> my pocket change at the moment (see me in 500 year then we will talk about
> it)
>
In 500 years, there may well be a new universe and intelligent life
(allowing for a rapid evolution via a large Hubble Constant--you know,
a 6-day Creation!!) would still be fairly nascent regarding particle
physics. But, you might be the engineer behind the New
Stonehenge!! ;-)
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 7:21 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > okay Pat to quote you: Scientists are a stubborn bunch and see that which
> > > they WANT to see.
>
> > > That is true,, except it is strange that on random timed tests the same
> > > event occurs and they are checking for neutrinos else where looking to
> > > eliminate the random event .. what they are saying is "a particle is
> > > arriving before it should.".. that it,, but that is very interesting..
>
> > > what it is time will tell
> > > Allan
>
> > Again, I agree. Time will tell and the experiment and potential
> > result were interesting. It just needs to be repeated regularly, now,
> > using different (but similar) equipment and between different
> > locations. It still could end up only implying that the neutrinos are
> > discovering ways to exploit extra-dimensional short-cuts rather than
> > actually moving faster-than-light.
>
> > BTW, everyone, I'm still on target for a 21-Dec-2011 release date for
> > my book; however, the publisher has, now, changed the name of the
> > publishing company and it will be published by 'New Lime Publishing'.
> > I'll get you (plural) the website as soon as it's up and running. I
> > promise that New Lime will get you your copies as quickly as Amazon
> > would; but, with a VERY key difference: when we see any of your names
> > on the order forms, you can rest assured that your copies will be
> > signed by the author (that's me!) with a unique message for each of
> > you!!!! Through Amazon, that kind of 'order scrutiny' would be
> > impossible.
>
> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 7, 7:45 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I don't think they know for sure just what they know for sure just
> > what
> > > > they
> > > > > are something is arriving before the speed of light sez it should.
>
> > > > > I think that is cool
> > > > > Allan
>
> > > > I think it's interesting, but they still can't rule out the fact that
> > > > the neutrinos that arrived 'early' MAY have not come from CERN. Every
> > > > star emits neutrinos in all directions at any time and as it is very
> > > > difficult to stop neutrinos, they pass through most
> > > > everything...including the Earth. The fact that Gran Sasso had
> > > > created an object that WOULD stop neutrinos guarantees that, at some
> > > > point in time, it would do just that. They'll never be able to rule
> > > > out the possibility that the 'early' neutrinos may have been sourced
> > > > from some place other than CERN and that will always cause doubt. If
> > > > the scientists don't accept that, then they are as idiotic as the
> > > > Church was when it demanded that the Sun revolve around the Earth.
> > > > Scientists are a stubborn bunch and see that which they WANT to see.
> > > > If they discover that neutrinos can consistently arrive at their
> > > > destination faster than the speed of light, it may not upset Special
> > > > Relativity at all, rather, it may provide evidence that the neutrinos
> > > > are taking a short cut via a different dimension. If so, then it
> > > > points towards a String Theory-based universe. As I said...we'll
> > > > see. I'm still publishing based on Special Relativity and my book
> > > > explains what I've said above regarding other potential sources for
> > > > the neutrinos. This result begs more questions than it answers and
> > > > THAT little fact only helps me with regard to String Theory. ;-)
>
> > > > > On Oct 7, 2011 8:39 PM, "archytas" <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I'd guess they do know the origin as Cern - but they ain't sure
> > they
> > > > > > are neutrinos.
>
> > > > > > On Oct 7, 2:58 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Pat it was not a one time affair,, checked and rechecked..
> > > > > > > it will be changing or rather challenging the concepts
> > > > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Pat <
> > PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Oct 4, 1:47 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I do not think time travel is putting it correctly. what I
> > think
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > really saying is that there are laws beyond those that we
> > know
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > understand today,, they went to extreme measures to verify
> > the
> > > > > > > > > measurements Like actually measure the speed of light to
> > with in
> > > > 18
> > > > > > cm
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > make sure the calculations were correct. like stopping the
> > > > traffic
> > > > > > > > though
> > > > > > > > > the trans alps tunnel so it would not interfere with
> > > > measurements..
>
> > > > > > > > > I have known for many years that in the spiritual world that
> > when
> > > > you
> > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > you know it all there is more,, wonder what the new models
> > will
> > > > look
> > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > ,, any ideas Pat?
> > > > > > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > > > > Loads. I think the neutrinos that landed early weren't from
> > CERN,
> > > > > > > > but, of course, there's no way to prove or disprove that.
> > > > > > > > Alternatively, if strings weave in and out of the Calabi-Yau
> > space
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > I believe they do, then the Calabi-Yau space can serve as a
> > form of
> > > > > > > > Star Trek-like 'sub-space' that might be able to be used to
> > take
> > > > short-
> > > > > > > > cuts through space; but, it would only work for items that were
> > > > > > > > incredibly small, i.e., strings and, of course, in String
> > Theory,
> > > > > > > > neutrinos are simply strings vibrating in a particularly
> > unique way
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > to appear AS neutrinos.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:45 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > The problems are discussed in the link video. My world
> > without
> > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > is created by everything being skewed for instant
> > reception.
> > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > question is why we never put the effort of science into
> > social
> > > > > > > > > > questioning. These hard yards are always evaded.
> > > > > > > > > > The most fascinating issue in the neutrino experiment is
> > they
> > > > may
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > found the tachyon and this would open up the possibility of
> > > > > > > > > > information time travel and confirm very weird mass.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 11:38 pm, Allan Heretic <allanh1...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hoi Pat the measurements were within 18 inches.. they
> > did a
> > > > lot
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > verify the distance traveled.. it is just some
> > particals are
> > > > > > > > arriving
> > > > > > > > > > > sooner than they should.
> > > > > > > > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 11:28 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 9:28 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.universetoday.com/89407/particle-physics-and-faster-than-l.
> > > > > > > > ..
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This link has a video with the best clarification
> > I've
> > > > heard.
> > > > > > > > One or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > two might be interested.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > One idea I do like is that of neutrinos 'seeing' a
> > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > geometry. There are geometries in which distance is
> > > > > > illusory.
> > > > > > > > > > Knowing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all this I'll still be taking the train into town.
> > > > People at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Manchester 1864 don't think the results will hold,
> > but
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > spinning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some examples of what would make sense assuming they
> > are
> > > > > > right.
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > always feel a bit of sadness when amongst scientists
> > > > these
> > > > > > days -
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to do with how different the world of sane dialogue
> > is
> > > > > > compared
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > everyday dross in which evidence is barely
> > understood and
> > > > > > reality
> > > > > > > > > > > > > denied in favour of Idols.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've become a fan of Rosanne Barr's candidature for
> > > > > > President.
> > > > > > > > Never
> > > > > > > > > > > > > liked her show. Neutrinos probably won't do much to
> > > > > > Einstein's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > stuff. Quite why economic data hasn't got us
> > thinking in
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > primitive terms like hers I don't understand. This
> > is
> > > > where
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > detail and supposed links with theory drives me. We
> > > > remain
> > > > > > > > medieval
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in all except science. Scientists do not proceed in
> > very
> > > > > > > > rational
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ways and it seems odd to me we abstract a false
> > notion of
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > our more social affairs. The model of non-science
> > > > "science"
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > politics and journalism needs to be eradicated so
> > that
> > > > > > > > > > values,passion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > humour and compassion can flow without being shunned
> > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 'emotionalism'. Tiny, abberant 'neutrinos' that
> > might be
> > > > > > > > tachyons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (with strange mass) can influence scientific
> > thinking,yet
> > > > > > years
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > super-rich looting, war and more and more of our own
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário