First off, I wasn't "jumping on Jeff". If that's the impression I gave, then I'm truly sorry.
Second, I never said that Jeff had totally rejected science as fact, I said that he had rejected it on some level. I based that on:
I was a physics major, and I love solving scientific mysteries, but some things are better left to just knowing with your heart rather than understanding with your brain.
I took this to mean that although Jeff had studied science, he had since come to accept other sources of knowledge as being more reliable in certain circumstances.
As for the "greater plane of understanding" argument being insulting, he's the one to made distinction between teachers who were or were not "enlightened":
Unless a teacher is enlightened, then I would consider their information carefully and respectfully, but I could not accept it as the end-all be-all.
As far as physics taking the mysteriousness and "magic" out of Aikido, this is exactly the same line of argument that was used against science when it came on the scene in its early days. Personally, I don't have a great need for Aikido to be mysterious and magical. If you do, then that's cool but don't berate others of us who are comfortable explaining it in terms of science.
As far as Jeff's Aikido being different from mine, I stated that plainly in my post. I would like to know why I'm considered rude for countering his arguments with my own logical assertions. That's part of what a message board is for, to make points and offer counter-points. My intent was never to be rude nor was it to be a troll. I deeply apologize to Jeff
felt that I was being rude to him