Ok – I’m not sure what part of my post warrants a statement like that.
This part . . .
I don't have a PhD in physics so I'm not really qualified to make a judgement either way.
My statement was meant to be interpreted, "Don't sell yourself short . . . I know from your many previous posts that you have a logical mind, and a decent grasp of the sciences."
The only other point I was attempting to make, though I probably didn't word it clearly enough, is the discontinuity with expected energy levels can't, in itself, be proof of the negative case. In this case, that FTL does not exist.
It does act as additional argument against, provided the original model holds up.
I also agree about knowing our limitations, and that also feeds back into my point. The only way to advance in learning is to admit the possibility of error. Einstein understood this very well.
It may be we have reached the ultimate and the General Theory will stand forever. I personally hope not.
Not because I am waiting for FTL flight in my lifetime (though it would be nice) but because the truely exciting and new developments in science always seem to require the collapse of the current model.
Anyway, I agree, that it is most likely that the CERN observers have some nasty error plaguing their experiment. Still, it would be wonderful if it wasn't so. We shall see (I hope).