In order to begin the conversation, I’d like for you to read this article published online by www.guardian.co.uk.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/12/alabama-slavery-latino-immigrants
I don’t mind waiting when I know that waiting will get me the result I am looking for. For instance, I don’t mind waiting for a tomato vine to grow or for the sun to go down so I can sip tea in my backyard while the shadows deepen. I can wait while Irish oatmeal is cooking (especially if I can smell a bit of mint tea brewing, too) and I can wait while my wife prepares tabouleh and I can wait while the water heats up again so I can take a long hot shower … especially if I can savor a cup of freshly-brewed coffee while I wait. Continue reading
Do an internet search on the terms “CERN” and “speed of light” and you’ll find the surprising news that neutrinos may (may) have been pushed past the speed of light, long thought to be the fastest speed attainable anywhere, by anything, ever.
Outside of metaphysics and the transporter room of the USS Enterprise, that is.
The dominant mindset at the moment is to check CERN’s work with fresh experiments and fresh eyes reviewing the CERN experiment. This is in part because Einstein’s numbers dictated that the only way to attain a higher speed was if you could apply an infinite amount of energy to the acceleration and, put simply, the particle accelerator at CERN does not have access to that much energy.
If (IF) the CERN numbers are confirmed, the world at large will be left with an interesting proposition: either all physics since Einstein has been based on faulty numbers from his era or – and this is the more interesting option – the laws of physics are in transition and never were static to begin with.
Faced with that choice, I think that most scientists will lean toward the former and scurry about trying to adjust historical calculations. They claim to be open to new ideas, but they can’t do the math if the physics underlying the cosmos can’t be pinned down. So, they will argue for “prior error, now corrected” rather than “false premise, repair exceeds human ability.”
I’m leaning toward the latter. I would rather argue that the final day of creation left the universe in a transient state and that it has not yet reached stability than that science is immutable.
I cite John 5:17 in support of that position and claim that the current fooferaw in scientific circles supports the factuality of the assertion made there.
– Jude
