The only thing I'm saying is: IT MAKES SENSE.

If scientists find out that when you pronounce "wertkumakana" 3 times you develop golden wings in your back, I will be shocked and will post "Wow, I'm impressed" on the thread.

So if light would be fast then, the universe would be small....

That statement reminds me somehow of the old 'unstoppable force vs immovable object' paradox.

I just love where this has gone... is light slow or is it fast? How do we determine such things? Shouldn't our own observations about light and this potential new finding show us something about the way we observe things in science? The whole scientific method has done the opposite of what religion has done and that's to take a concept of provable observations to be the only truth that can be known. This, like religion, is terribly short sighted and by removing us as the observers of such things from the equation limits the results we get from our answers.

To us spinning on this fancy rock called earth, light is unbelieveably fast, the fastest thing we've ever observed (until now possibly) but in the grand scheme and size of the universe, light could be considered slow since it would take 100,000 years to travel from one end of a galaxy to another. What we're missing here (and what psychedelics show us about everything it seems) is that light just IS! Forget it's qualities and speed in relation to us and all that, I think what we've missed as a whole with science is that the FASTEST thing we can observe would STILL not be enough to travel the cosmos. To me, this is clear support that we have missed something of vital importance to our understanding of physics, and if I were to postulate the missing element is US!

I dunno. I don't know much about physics I really don't. I can understand the conclusions that are drawn, but never the math or process experiments used to draw such conclusions. However, and I would hope everyone in this forum would agree, psychedelics show us something truly not explained by science or accurately portrayed by any religion (not entirely anyways). We as psychonauts KNOW how to access hyperspace and that it exists and we know what it is to travel through it. Until science opens its doors to fresh ideas and throws away strictly rational reductionist ideologies when approaching conciousness and our experience, I don't think you will EVER have a way to travel much farther than our own solar system.

That's really the reason I was so excited to read this article, if special relativity is fundamentally wrong, then it will require our best and brightest minds to come up with new models and with all the advances and strange findings of quantum mechanics, perhaps some very bright person or persons will come up with a much more consistent theory of everything that includes in it the human experience.

...No, it doesn't. Everything we have ever observed, in any measurement of any physical phenomenon of the universe, has agreed with the notion that the speed of light is unsurpassable. It's every bit as shocking as it would be to discover that "when you pronounce 'wertkumakana' 3 times you develop golden wings in your back". Really.



I disagree. There is no scientific law or theory that precludes us from being able to trip out on psychedelics. Science effortlessly explains all of the perceptual distortions induced by DMT with the current model of the human nervous system, by telling us that our consciousness is a product of electrical activity traveling through neural networks, which is altered and disturbed by the presence of a tryptamine hallucinogen.

I would like to challenge any of you to present to me ONE phenomenon of a DMT trip that seemingly contradicts the laws of nature as described by science.

Well first of all, “the laws of nature” and “the laws of nature as described by science” are not the same thing. The topic of this thread, if proven to be true, is just one example of this difference.

The laws of nature encompass all of reality, both known and unknown. The laws of nature as described by science includes only those laws known by science (after all, science can’t describe what it doesn’t know).

So (for the sake of argument) I agree that DMT experiences are fully explainable by the laws of nature, but DMT experiences probably can’t be explained by the laws of nature as described by science. See the difference?


Science can’t explain consciousness. Period.

The idea that “consciousness is a product of electrical activity traveling through neural networks” is a hypothesis with little to no supporting evidence. It’s a mystery to me why you would think that science can explain altered states of consciousness when it can’t yet even explain ordinary states of consciousness.

Since altered states of consciousness can’t yet be explained by science, I think it’s very reasonable to claim that “psychedelics show us something truly not explained by science”. But I’d take that a step further and say that “everyday conscious experience shows us something truly not explained by science”.

..experiencing light and illuminated moving objects on DMT has long caused me to consider the 'Superluminal' universe..

here is the current (apparently about to be updated) wikipedia entry for:

Tachyon


..the tachyon field has also been described as the 'mirror universe', everything we can't see or measure with current scientific process..
from memory, the faster their velocity the less their mass

FYI this whole debacle is very likely bullshit resulting from human error and hyperbolic misreporting. We know of many instances of supernovae from which the neutrinos have reached us at more or less the same time as have the photons; there is some slight discrepancy due to photons zig-zagging in the high energies of the stellar explosion and other factors that affect light but not neutrinos, but even across a range of many thousands of lightyears the race between the two comes down to a scant few minutes.

I recall hearing about something similar to this some time ago, maybe within the span of a couple of years. I don't remeber exactly, but it had to do with particles being detected escaping a black hole, therefore suggesting they moved faster than light, or something along those lines. So this just doesn't seem to surprise me too much. Although it's very interesting still.

No, again, it doesn't really matter whether we consider light fast or not. The reason it's supposedly impossible to go faster than the speed of light, as far as I know (not much), is because according to the theory of relativity, it would take infinite energy to accelerate something faster than the speed of light, and that's impossible. I may be wrong on the exact scientific reason, but the point is that faster than light travel is MATHEMATICALLY and logically impossible. It has nothing to do with being short sighted, or not knowing much about other galaxies. If fire feels hot to us on earth, it's going to feel hot no matter where we go in the universe. It's not closed minded to think so.

But, this new particle discovery is an exciting thing.

The real question is...

Can these particles accelerate as fast as light?

I guess this is the first time we've been able to test this theory practically, but I'm guessing light still has the gold medal for acceleration.

Although *gasp*

2012 next year!

The neutrinos.....

ARE MUTATING!

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1932-07-10.htm

“All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light.

“More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them.”

I was able to prevail upon Dr. Tesla to give me some idea of the principle upon which his cosmic ray motor works.

“I will tell you in the most general way,” he said. “The cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges—ions and electrons. These charges are captured in a condenser which is made to discharge through the circuit of the motor.


Looks like Tesla discovered them before anyone else.

There doesn't by definition has to be a violation of the laws of nature if these observations would prove to be true.

Light by itself could still be faster than these particles. There could be some force that slows down photons, but that doesn't affect these neutrino's.

Like a ferrari is a faster car than a landrover, but not when you drive ofroad through muddy terain.

Remember that neutrino's are capable of going straight through the earth without being slowed down by it in any way, while photons are slowed down by almost any medium they pass through.

I read the article and I cannot tell you how giddy it made me.Now that we've gotten it out of the way that faster than light speed travel is possible now we can begin planning our journey out to the stars. If we can find a way to condense matter to pure neutrinos (something tells me we already have the technology, look up the disclosure project if you haven't heard about it) then you would be able to travel millions of light years in a matter of minutes. This is awesome, honestly I think this is equal if not better to the moon landing.
People! to your saucers! and to the stars!

To the stars indeed. But before we leave this planet for good, lets see if those results were valid, or other explanations, etc.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

Yes indeed I agree more time needs to pass to verify the results but i'm still excited. and i'd rather not leave the planet for good, i'm quite fond of this place actually. I'm just stoked to see whats out there.

..i'm searching out some of the details of tachyon theory, but i seem to recall that they have zero or negative mass..they are more like space than matter..this suggests cosmic superluminal travel may not be possible in a 'material'/molecular form, but in a different end of the energy spectrum (DMT consciousness travel?)
..until now (maybe) there has been no experimental method to test for their existance (except Cherenkov Radiation, which may be observable near black holes)
..tachyon theory does not violate relativity, it expands it (as far as i've generally read, which isn't much on the subject)

here's the wikipedia's Faster Than Light entry:


..superluminal activity could also explain 'communication' between paired particles at large distances..any physicists out there (in here) ..?