.
. It was once thought that travel faster than sound would be impossible in airplanes, so when a person would say something to others ahead of them in the plane, the sound wouldn't reach. If relativity is about the speed of light and is therefore much about electromagnetism, it's believed by some a starship may go faster if the lines of the electromagnetic field were simply shielded or cut. (My idea was the cosmic ship would be need to smoothed because even if the lines were cut, by shields the electric field is in all the cosmos. So a fast ship to the stars would cut the lines of force and perhaps smooth the field for reduced slowup by introducing a fluid of light at the right wavelength that would flow around the ship, the same way boats go many times the speed of more conventional machines by a layer of air from the exaust piped around the outside of the leading edge.) This wouldn't violate the slowup of watches on the starship because a bubble of field just like the air in the airplane would be maintained in the ship. If a ship went all the way from here to a distant realm of the cosmos and back in a second without slower shiptime, a second would have passed and the area of the field inside the ship would be a second older, and the slowup of watches and mass boost and other motifs of Einstein's on the ship would be canceled inside much the same way pressurized air and strakes that bend the shock wave around airplanes allow higher speed travel than just the speed of sound. Seperate disconnected points of space and time would be unified and this is necessary for energy conservation because mass energy is neither created or destroyed so has existed and will exist for an age of ages (even without grand opera!).
If gravity travels at light speed or slower, it couldn't seal the cosmos and out distance the centrifugal force that seperate points of space time involve. If they are disconnected by a slower speed of light than the speed to outgo the thermodynamic entropy this would be my explanation of centrifugal force. If gravity counteracts inertia it would be of higher speed. Special relativity is about linear motion and the speed of light, thus with outward acceleration of such as the moon, the linear motion is via the only other force than gravity long range, thermodynamics. Disconnected points on the outside edge of the universe would have evaporated out and energy would be lost, so over infinite eons the cosmos would have lost or won infinite energy and the fastest weigh of ship travel couldn't be faster than light. That the speed of light is the top speed thus seems to violates energy conservation, and the idea of fast travel of signals and ships is perhaps a cosign of the times. Gravity would go faster than light to connect the power up and save the cosmos for the Helsinki Fire Ants! The lighter you go the faster you go because of F=ma the law of physics. If the mass is zero the speed can be any speed and the mass is the general mass density of the force, and directly determined by this. In my belief, gravity may go much faster than light without relativistic effects not because the field lines are cut or shielded. Rather gravity would interact so weakly it would pass through the electromagnetic field without much change, like two antennas of different wavelength there would be some interaction so the matter wave of my physics which would replace the space time of Special Relativity with a more active faster than light field to reach the light and change the wavelength before it reaches the high speed starship visitor at just the speed of light. The implosion or expansion of the usual electric or magnetic component of the electromagnetic field (depending on whether it was a + or - charge) would be the electrogravity of Einstein, and while the longer range component would be more pure gravity at much higher velocity, the electrogravity would go faster than light but not with as much speed as the lower power field. This lower power field would be the gravity of the wavelengths of worlds or the cosmos. Most astronomers have seen that the idea of the faster than light motion of gravity is of general value in the physics of massive events like the BL Lacs, radio sources, and others.
The light of a massive behemoth is inside the flow inward because the gravity would go so much faster it would always outdistance the light. Strong gravity is found powering these massive sources. If the speed of light is the top speed of such a supermassive levithian, it would always flow in involution and no mass of any sort could escape it. The top speed is also a fundamental measure of the top mass density. The higher the top speed, the faster the particles may spin around and the more centrifugal force is available to stop gravity. This is necessary to uphold energy conservation, otherwise here too energy would be being removed from the cosmos into the source of massive gravity. The force to power the jets would be stronger than any force known to outpower this much compressive force. So the idea that gravity is faster than light explains how no light is seen from many massive gravity sources, how the energy that falls in is not lost to the cosmos, and the power source of the jets that with the gravitational field would be saved for the cosmos, (and a boom box always will!)
The faster than light motion would also explain the astronomer's observation of The Great Wall and the cosmos at the largest scale as seen by the machines of the 21st century. Eric Lerner says about the Great Wall in his book The Big Bang Never Happened, this huge wall of stars wouldn't have had time to form from the central expansion of the cosmos if the speed of light is the top speed of the force that hadn't stopped it.
The Wilkenson probe found on the largest distance maps the cosmos has a huge pair of "sides", this would be explained by cohesive force of gravity that would be faster than light. It's a regular motif and a wave carrying information about it would be one good explanation. Another possibility is that the cosmos originally had two symmetrical jets and they've stayed at that angle, and the two sides of the cosmos aren't connected by any information signal, but if jets are of worth to explain the "sides" it would seem more logical to have just one per side not two, as in other high energy masses like high energy radio sources, pulsars, a large fraction of galaxies, and so on.
While this and other disproofs may not be evidence against special relativity itself (well proven) my causology which I name General Wave dynamics, or GWD would encompass Special Relativity but replace both General and Special relativity with one more general physics! I call my way to explain these disproofs about the speed of light General Wave Dynamics because the speed and direction of the waves are the framework of the rest of the physics for the forces and Einstein uses kinematics for relativity (Einstein believed gravity has no source and is not a force) or descriptions of motion just in the rest frames of uniform motion without consideration of cause of changes in acceleration where the speed of light changes (See Relativity, General and Special heading on My Physics Synopses page). Special relativity explains uniform motion, not accelerations. And because it's about uniform motion the only way Relativity can seem to hold for gravitational accelerations is by Einstein's unproven belief that the Earth is rushing up at 32 feet per second so all masses fall at the same rate as much as the relative motion of the earth as of many types of masses (see also the rest of this page or my synopsis.) Dynamics are about both changes in motion and the causes, and this is why GWD may be an improvement because it's more comprehensive.
.Einstein said if one of his ideas go they all go. One of the proofs he used for Special Relativity was that with a magnet and a coil of wire the motion of either was the same and relative, it didn't matter which was moving or at rest. Machines that generate leptons and protons and the slower lives of high speed masses in the cosmos are proof of special relativity, without Einstein's explanation all the machines would run out of achievements in subatomic physics. Whatever Einstein thought of gravity there is no doubt that Special Relativity exists. Gravity and higher speed travel of waves would not be a disproof of Einstein's ideas about the electromagnetic field being limited by the field of just light speed and an extension too because gravity would be somewhat like electromagnetism, obeying energy conservation, and in other respects it's own. General Relativity is based on relative motion and this is then proven by the one or two experiments of the observation of the shift of the rate of fall of Mercury over time and other motifs likethe Mossbauer effect where the wavelength of light at the top of a tower on the earth is greater at the base than the higher up because of a change in the redshift of light, of worth to Special Relativity. Einstein holds two opposite truths. His explanation of gravity is via what Galileo found about his proof that masses fall at the same rate near the earth. Einstein seized upon this as a proof of the relativity of gravity because if you held the two different masses level and didn't drop them but instead accelerated the earth's surface up at the usual rate of fall by "millions of giant rockets" in Einstein's belief instead of the masses falling with the motion relative, the two masses would reach the upward sped surface of the earth at the same moment. If it was of the same worth whether the earth or the masses were moving and that the masses were unequal, the relative motion was all, and they would fall at the same rate.
I think there are just two errors in Einstein's explanation-the theory and the experiment! The moon falls at another rate around the earth than the earth around the moon, a rock falls at a third rate to the earth than the earth to the rock, and if the masses were known as the same relative to gravity energy wouldn't be conserved because in subatomic physics the conservation laws show that each force going from weaker to stronger has all the properties of the force below it in power plus some more properties conserved. Each force would thus be an energised resonance of the force (or forces) below it in power. So gravity would be the mother of all forces, the basic force which would operate mostly by connection of the seperate points of space time explaining the conservation of energy being in all the cosmos. All of the cosmos operates more by change than lack of change, so exercise is a better way to lift weight! Energy conservation is conservation of quantity of linear and angular motion. So if gravity is the foundation force and all force is measured by change if two masses are not the same and gravity operates by acceleration they fall at more than one rate. To prove two masses are the same by lifting them to the same height is already disproof of the relativity of mass because it takes just as much more power to lift the heavy mass as it weighs. If you use the same force on both masses you can lift the light mass higher, and if you drop them both from their own heights, the light mass falls more and over more distance and the slow mass falls slower and reaches the earth's surface before the light mass. Another reason they haven't found this in the usual experiments may be as if comparing the light of a 5 volt lamp and a 10 volt lamp beside a huge 50 million volt light; relative to the huge mass of the earth the two 5 and 10 pound masses are almost the same.. Energy conservation operates by action reaction pairs, the union by which all is measured. If you put a mass such as the moon on one side of a weighing boom and the earth on the other and weighed them the same result about their rate of fall is achieved that is found when two unlike masses are attached to each end of it and thrown up in the air spinning. The smaller mass whirls around with more speed just like the moon and the larger mass like the earth spins slower. This is in accord with the F=ma. The force is balanced and so the smaller mass has a greater rate of fall. This may be the real general law instead of the speed of light being the top speed by axiom because the speed of light would be just about electromagnetism. Conservation of linear and angular momentum is energy conservation and would apply to both gravity and perhaps other forces. So if a small mass is weighed like the moon, the center of mass of the stone/earth system would be much nearer the center of the earth (if the moon was not present) but the lifted rock via it's own mass would move it somewhat nearer to it's own field. If you take a second stone of another mass the center of mass by energy conservation would not be the same because the mass of the rock is not the same. If they were the same and the rocks fell at the same rate by Einstein, the moon and the earth would fall at the same rate also about a central center of mass and so would all masses. Einstein has no description of how it is we fall at another rate on the moon or other worlds, and in General Relativity the Equivalence Principle says they fall at the same rate. The proof of this in Einstein's vision was that Mercury falls at a changing rate, and the other "proofs" that are all of decidedly unrelativistic accelerations. This is the opposite of saying they fall at the same rate, the main evidence Einstein's General theory of Relativity is based on.
Einstein based General Relativity on the conception of giant rockets boosting the earth's surface up to reach the two distinct masses at the exact same moment. If this were so the Earth would expand and we would be at the speed of light in less than a year! This is also the disproof of expansion theory of Mark Mcutcheon, which in it's most general formulation makes no predictions Einstein's theory doesn't already make. (Expansion physics has gravity and all the other forces as the result of expansion of all the fields.) Obviously some fields expand and some have implosion and they aren't equivalent as Einstein held, or gravity would travel at just the speed of light and the relativity of gravity would be proven by the rate of fall of Mercury.
.
If many rates of fall are allowed, some observers are more convenient than others. The more mass you have have the more gravitational you are and the more gravity is of worth. The earth is more at rest than the moon and the sun is more at rest than the earth so they're more valid. Einstein said all observers are equally valid, although not all are equally convenient. I think this is like saying "All values (like the word valid) are the same and all prices are not, but of what worth are prices?" When a starship will whizz through the cosmos and no frame of reference is at rest more than in motion, all observers are as valid and the same as the rest. In usual life you won't say "Why go to Ohio, When Ohio will be here in a month!" are the same. This is disproof of the relativity of motion but only with other forces than would be measured by a constant speed of light alone. By F=ma if my belief about Maxwell is valid, the speed of gravity generally would be found by the inverse of its mass density or strength, (which is much weaker than the electric field density) or 10 to the 37 times the speed of light.
One contradictionof GWD where the fractional charges and gravity lighten up to travel faster than light is about the neutrino, it seems to have energy comparable to light particles but no electric charge. If my interpretation of relativity in GWD by way of Maxwell is about the speed of light and electromagnetism and the neutrino has no charge and not much mass with almost no interaction with relativity it might seem probable the neutrino could go faster than light, it's lighter than light why not faster than light?
This may not be a problem because this wikipedia site says
..
."The existence of a neutrino mass strongly suggests the existence of a tiny neutrino magnetic moment[10] of the order of 10−19 μB, allowing the possibility that neutrinos may interact electromagnetically as well."
...
The lightness of the neutrino with it's relativistic field about the speed of light and thus electromagnetism could thus be a limit to faster than light for the neutrino. The neutrino wouldn't have extra force added to make it go faster than light like the strong force and the lighter fractional charges, and unlike gravity it wouldn't be so light and uncharged it could pass through the field of the light with relativity's limit. If lighter is faster the neutrino might seem be one of the easier particles to move faster than light about it's rest mass. Even so as Carl Sagan says in Cosmos that "if the electric field was somehow turned off, all the world around us would crumble to a fine dust" of matter waves. The electric charge might be more influential to reduce the neutrino's speed to "slower than faster" than light, so even with it's low mass faster than light travel with the neutrino may be more improbable than with the strong force and gravity so GWD wouldn't be disproven by no higher speed motion seen for the neutrino.
A LIGHT GREEN GREEN LIGHT CONVERSATION
The Wikapedia site in the heading Faster Than Light has the following problems of faster than light motion; I think gravity being lighter than light in intrinsic strength may go much faster than light just as you can throw a horse shoe further and faster when the horses are in a Mazda!
(MY COMMENTS IN LIGHT BLUE!)
"Faster-Than-Light travel or communication is problematic in a universe that is consistent with Einstein's theory of relativity. In a hypothetical universe where Newton's laws of motion and the Galilean transformations are exact, rather than approximate, the following would be true: The laws of physics are the same in every uniformly-moving frame of reference, although some laws would have to include terms containing the velocity of the frame of reference"
MY CONCLUSION; The laws of physics are the same for all observers in Special Relativity. They all agree on the speed of light. This is what Einstein thought when he named Relativity invariance theory [of the speed of light]. That the laws of physics are the same generally because of the union with the speed of light for all observers in special relativity is not a disproof. In neither this my formulation of GWD (General Wave Dynamics), or Einstein's are any major rules of physics broken. Just as with a train's doppler shift and constant speed of sound and with the light we see the train, all observers agree on the speed of sound. The light is much faster and this doesn't disprove the doppler shift of the train. So too for the light of a high speed observer (at relativistic speeds near the speed of light) the faster than light motion of a gravity wave wouldn't disprove the light but, like the light and the sound of the train, it would make it much easier to find out where and what the train was about. You may be able to use light to find out some physics and gravity to find others without violation of more general physics by either, just as via the physics of sound and light. Gravity could offer a more reliable stream of information, so it would be more general. Relativity would be derived from GWD but not vice versa.
"Quantities measured in different reference frames are related by Galilean transformations, although for some quantities the transformation under the Galilean group is complicated Velocities add linearly and a fixed point x in one reference frame corresponds to the trajectory x-vt in a frame moving with relative velocity v to the first. "
MY CONCLUSION; If as I have believed gravity is much lighter and faster than light it may not only go fast, it may interact with the electric field of the speed of light of Relativity much more passively, the passive space time of Einstein. If gravity is the foundation field as GWD holds it must interact with the light enough to be what is waving if light is a wave (Maxwell and the ether theory) it would be passive enough to be without any shielding at usual levels of power in our daily life. If the moon e.g. appreciably shielded it would already have gradually spun outward and away. If there is a mass with electric or other charge they would interact with the gravity so passively it would be like light changing a sound wave. The physics of sound are more derived from the physics of electromagnetism, light is in all the cosmos but sound is more localized and since the light has little influence on the sound and it's much faster, in it's turn light itself would be derived from gravitation. Since the space and time of Special Relativity on GWD are essentially properties of the high speed masses and energy, the doppler shift of light may be considered to be the same as the essence of all the rest of the relativity. I hold that while you can't add the velocities of the special relativity or the electromagnetic field, if gravity is at a much removed wavelength, it may interact with the light so weakly at other wavelengths you would be able to add these velocities with no problem. And just as with the air and sound, if you streamline the train well enough or shield the high speed ship from the electric field and the light, you would be able to go at higher speeds than sound or light, this is adding velocities in the usual sense. Otherwise, you would be unable to add velocities at low speeds and not at high speeds.
"All observers agree on the time, up to an overall shift" "Simultaneity is a well-defined concept in that all observers agree on whether any two events are simultaneous"
MY CONCLUSION; The lack of simultaneity is disproof of General Relativity because the finite speed of light makes it so events are not connected and connection is necessary to conserve energy. In Special Relativity it's well established that the slow speed of light means we can't know what's before or after in events at say, alpha centauri by any method. If you used smoke signals and could just use the speed of sound your time frames of each smoke would be say two seconds instead of much higher resolution of optical wavelengths and velocities.
"However, according to Einstein's theory of special relativity, what we measure as the speed of light in a vacuum is actually the fundamental physical constant c. This means that all observers, regardless of their acceleration or relative velocity, will always measure zero-mass particles (e.g., gravitons as well as photons) naturally traveling at c. This result means that measurements of time and velocity in different frames are no longer related simply by constant shifts, but are instead related by Poincaré transformations. These transformations have important implications: "Matter becomes more massive as it accelerates, and at the speed of light, an object would have infinite mass"
.
"To accelerate an object of non-zero rest mass to c would require infinite time with any finite acceleration, or infinite acceleration for a finite amount of time Either way, such acceleration requires infinite energy. Going beyond the speed of light in a homogeneous space would hence require more than infinite energy, which is not a sensible notion."
MY CONCLUSION; All the relativistic effects in formulation of GWD are in essence from the speed of light, and the gravity and matter waves themselves don't interact strongly with the light so if a way is found to just shield from the light in such as a high speed starship, the mass may not be infinite by means of reduced interaction with the light at high speeds.
.
The EQUIVALENCE of MASS AND ENERGY By MOTION OF MANY SPEEDS (Not By Relativity and Just The Speed of Light)
.
That mass and energy and mass and inertia are equivalent is based on the conversion of mass to energy always being in units of the constant speed of light (E=mc2) and the inertia and mass are the same with Einstein's belief because light masses are found by some experiments to fall at the rate of heavy masses in experiments with masses near the surface of the earth. I hold that mass and energy and the related idea that mass and inertia (saying much the same) are equivalent is because all is made of motion, but it's the change of motion, not the somewhat arbitrary same rate of motion of the speed of light or the uniform acceleration of gravity of Einstein. If the moon and a rock fall at different rates than the earth, this would show up at some level of resolution. Although mass and energy are both made of the same motion, since mass is heavy and energy is light, they would fall at more than one rate, an airship rises and a Noel tries to lift us via commercials. And matter is somewhat heavier than antimatter so they would fall at different rates. If mass and energy were the same as in Einstein's theory they would fall at the same rate. And this distinction in mass and energy with both made of motion but one linear and the other angular so the opposite and having unlike properties locally, and so falling at different rates may explain where there is more matter than antimatter in the cosmos. Gravity would be the foundation field (See GRAVITY, FOUNDATION OF) Gravity is always simple and the same to energise up to the electromagnetic and then the strong field. The strong force would distinguish matter from antimatter because they are not the same, like mass and energy so the strong force would attract a positive charge more than an electron. Because the gravity is always simple, it's energised higher fields of electricity and the strong force always turn out the same, and the strong force created out of this always chooses the plus charge, atoms made of matter and not antiatoms are always found. In many realms of the cosmos there may be more plus or minus charges, to power the expansion and acceleration of the cosmos by more like charges in our own realm perhaps, but because the gravity is simple and the result is constant derived from the gravity, this would be why mass alone is found in the cosmos.
..
.Maxwell believed the more or less dense fields would have waves at any speed with no limit in sight because all the usual waves we find around us have speeds that are derived from the density of the flow of the field, Maxwell used this simple idea to derive the speed of light exactly found by the Michelson Morley experiment. So if there is a force like the strong force, it being much more dense than the usual electric field, would spin around at faster than light. The reason it would always convert over to the speed of E=mc2 from the faster force would be because at high power like the strong force the electric charges would lighten up to go faster than light but at outside radii of the hadrons the speed of the field would slow just at the speed of light, so the speed of light would be saved for Einstein. This would explain the fractional electric charges physicists believe make up the hadrons, strong force particles like the proton and neutron. You can throw a 1 lb weight farther and faster than a 10 lb weight. At usual power like in the lower energy electric field, the fractional charges would unify to + or- one. The strong force is a short distance force just with more power, you have more compression. So at short range the charge is not one, at longer range it unifies. The unified charges by Maxwell's formulation has a constant speed of light according to the density of the field caused by the charges. If the charge is one and minus one, the speed of light is exactly as predicted, it too is unchanging. So at longer distances than the strong force the physics would convert to units of the speed of light. Maxwells belief in a resilient field has no upper limit about the speed. While the strong force would convert to the speed of light only by plowing through the electric field to lower energy which would resist the faster acceleration of the strong force by relativistic effects, there would be no limit to the top speed, so a slow conversion of mass to power of like the sun could be much faster. If the strong force going much faster than the speed of light inside a proton or neutron was constantly doing more work than relativity would say to overcome the relativistic forces, perhaps if the electric field of the fractional charges could be reduced more, the strong force would have more of it's power at much higher speed. Without the hadron's flex of the outside flow of power this may improve our machines like Focus Fusion where the implosion of the atom's field may be used to improve the fusion.
.
IS SPIN IN INDIVISABLE UNITS OR FASTER THAN LIGHT?
The idea that the spins of the subatomic charges are in the same integral or half integral units would at first glance seem to imply the spin isn't faster than light of the heavier particles since the all particles have the same units of spin, and they are just at the usual speed of light. But the tunneling experiments would seem to be definite evidence something is indeed faster than light in this realm of subatomic physics.
My way out for Maxwell and GWD is as follows; since the charge and spin quantum numbers are well established to be in definite correspondance and you couldn't have non unified electric charges at long distance via Special Relativity, like the fractional charges, the faster than light spins that would go hand in hand with the charges would just be where the fractional charges are. At short distance the spins would be faster with the fractional charges but the charge is just 1 or -1 and the spins all are in the same units at longer range and lower energy, where it would always add up to 1, 0 or -1, even with the faster than light spin and fractional charges at higher energys.( MORE ABOUT CONFINEMENT IN GWD. Why the speed of the strong interactions may not be possible without the assumption of Faster Than Light.) Another reason to believe in faster than light is that if there is FTL internal motion of heavy particles, there would essentially be another internal constant of motion like Plank's Constant even if the flow goes outside the heavy particle by mediation of the slower speed of Plank's constant, Relativity, and the speed of light. Thus to explain the lifetime of the subatomic particles themselves being so short, only a more general version of the constant would be of worth. The speed of the wave or particle is a sort of clock, and only a higher speed wave would explain the higher speed time.
If spinning Faster Than Light the maximum radii of massive particles would determine the greatest mass it could have, if mass is spinning energy and it spins at no more than the speed of light, the mass of the particles with more mass than the electron wouldn't be as large as they are if the strong force is spinning at Faster Than Light, this would be proof of GWD. While the outside of each particle spins at the Speed of Light, the center with more spin adds more mass. The extra mass of a meson or baryon is like an electron, the electron is said to have no size, but it has a given energy of spin at a given radius with spin at the speed of light. The radius is the same with the speed of light for the proton at 10-13 cm but the proton has much more mass than the electron, so the reason would be because of the higher rate of spin inside the same radius.
..
POSSIBLE WAYS TO PROVE FASTER THAN LIGHT MOTION OF THE STRONG FORCE/REFINEMENTS OF TUNNELING.
If the subparticles of the hadron spin around indeed at faster than the speed of light, probes on one side of the hadron and then out with a small delay on the other side would find a faster speed than light of the subparticles, to change the angle would change the speed more or less according to the density (before subtraction of the speed of the outer electric field to reach the counter, see below). Second, if the tunneling effects of Chin using off the shelf physics to find a faster than light speed of probes through hadrons are on one side where the speed of the tunneling is faster than light somewhat, on the other side of the hadron going against the flow of the spin, the tunneling speed would be reduced as much as it was increased by the opposite flow. This would be way of more proof of the idea that the flow of the tunneling with the field was faster than light. (I agree with Einstein that the Uncertainty Principle is not general enough. There may be ways to get around the Uncertainty Principle by e.g. anchoring the seen particle by its S magnetic field to the N tip of a small boom to make it more stable, this would take up more of the force of the collision of the probe with it. A balloon sailing around the room is tougher to measure with air than if it's held steady to reduce the Uncertainty. Click Here for other possible ways to reduce Uncertainty.) Third, no longer range strong force particles are found and so the fractional charges are just thought by all physicists to be found only inside the heavy mesons and baryons. If they spin around at faster than the speed of light and the strong force is stronger than the speed of light and the electric field, another possible effect to prove if the strong force is faster than light is that there would be some delay in the efficiency of the conversion of the strong force to the electric field as it would plow outward at faster than light from a collision or other high power event like radioactivity. So just for a picosecond or so following the event the hadron or some motion of it overall would be going outward from the power source at faster than light. So the motion of the hadron would reach it's counter at a bit faster than light sometimes, with a bit faster clock of the speed. Chin's experiments found just a speed of 1.3 times the speed of light, this would not be 137 times the speed of light even with the strong force 137 times strong because the outer charge must always be 1 or - one so Maxwell's speed of light and relativity would always be upheld at lower energy, the probe would first be at just near the speed of light then deeper in at the higher speed and then out through the electromagnetic field slowing it down. Even so the total time would be faster than light, not just a motion of some of the light wave so the overall speed was still at just the speed of light as Chin believes (to say any motion of any realm of the wave is Faster Than Light may be just that, if GWD is true). If these and other effects are found, while the speed of light would be like a large energy wall caused only by the constant quantasized notch of the electrons and positive charges like the proton, Chen's tunneling experiment and the Bell theorem, ect. already are proof it wouldn't be infinitely high, they are all finite. If the cosmos has existed forever and will exist forever because energy conservation says energy is neither created or destroyed, there would be an infinite number of times that high energy events like explosions may have boosted masses to the speed of light. If just one of these events had the infinite mass of relativity, it would have infinite gravity and would have engulfed the whole cosmos, and we would be elsewhere. So the wall is high but this is proof it's finite. Another proof that relativity is not infinite so the speed of light is not an infinite limit is about light itself. Einstein thought light has a bit of mass, if it has any, there would be infinite mass gain at the speed of light for any mass. If it was actually infinite the infinite mass of just one photon would have engulfed us with its infinite gravity over the ages of infinite time of the cosmos. The reason light doesn't gain infinite mass like this may be because, if the unified (1 and -1) electrons and protons of the electromagnetic field essentially control the speed of light by Maxell's assumption af a resilient medium and my explanation of it, the electron being finite has a definite but real limit, above that limit, resistance to the speed of light may be more a like a marm in the shush room in college who likes my college yells...!
Another disproof of General relativity via faster than light wave motion might be by use of a Torsion Balance machine used since the 1800's to measure that gravity attracts all masses. With a probe sent to a half light hour from the sun a solar flare would be measured by a more massive machine than this, if gravity is faster than light the machine would see it fast with a half hour delay in the light from the same explosion with the usual speed of light. Even if the speed of gravity turns out to be just the speed of light, this would be the dawn of the age of gravity wave astronomy, by use of this machine. It's easy to know how massive it would have to be by the usual radiance and Sir Issac's laws. Another recent way to achieve this experiment may be to send an atomic clock near enough to measure the change in the gravity but far enough to compare the change to the speed of light to see if gravity is faster than light. For more About Gravity Wave Telescopes Click Here.
And faster than light motion also perhaps may be proven by the motions of the high speed mass from high power galaxies, and so on. If there is a rapid change of the motion of the mass and a group of stars was measured say 2000 light years away from the change but the same distance to us, if gravity is faster than light, the stars could take almost no wait instead of 2000 years for change in their light, and by observations of both the massive changes and the stars' this causology could be proven. CLICK HERE for two possible other (cheap) ways to measure the speed of gravity waves.
RETURN To More of ENCYCLOCOMP'S 4U!
PHYSICS SYNOPSES My PHYSICS LINKS
Q W L K j a G
....
posted by starship orion | 1:02 PM
