Quantum Gravity 397.6: Contradictions of "No Superluminal Speed"
in [Physics]
|
Prev: NASA’s TEM shows myofilaments in Martian meteorite ALH84001
Next: Latest climate climbdown: the Royal Society reviews its statements on global warming
From: OsherD on 30 May 2010 12:30 Two recent papers in arXiv have gone in the opposite directions almost, one finding a superluminal flare in the Central Black Hole of our galaxy, the second claiming that a superluminal geometry would be "unstable". Here are some key points in favor of Superluminal Speed. 1. Theories and claimed "Laws" in physics ARE subject to contradiction if they propose contradictory claims, and they ARE implausible if they appear to lead to contradictions. 2. "No Superluminal Speed" contradicts Inflation as Geometric Superluminality. 3. "No Material Superluminal Speed But Yes Geometric Superluminal Speed" is implausible and arguably leads to contradictions. 4. If the Universe's Geometry Inflated Superluminally, then a reversal of Inflation (Superluminal Contraction) or a partial reversal (stopping before reaching minute size of the Universe) would place material objects such as stars or galaxies within close proximity, which is roughly equivalent to Material Superluminality in its effects. This is because distant material objects would suddenly find themselves near each other. 5. The beta or gamma factor or its inverse which allegedly precludes Superluminality in Special Relativity, sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), changes SCALE from real to imaginary as v^2 changes from < c^2 to > c^2, as argued in my previous posts in this thread. This was more or less argued also by Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington in "The Mathematical Theory of Relativity," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge U.K. 1922, 1948, etc. Eddington wrote the first book on Relativity (Einstein and collaborators wrote the first papers on Relativity) and did the eclipse experiments on GR. This makes "No Superluminal Speed" implausible and arguably contradictory. There is no reason why the sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) precludes both subluminal (and luminal) and superluminal regimes other than their not being in comunication, and the latter (no communication) is even arguably wrong in view of modern knowledge of phase transitions and limitations of mathematical models at "extremes". 6. Subluminal and Luminal (light speed) experiments arguably cannot DISPROVE Superluminality without using electromagnetic waves which have Luminal speed, which is implausible and arguably contradictory. Arguably, Superluminal speed objects or entities would have their own Superluminal waves, which should then be used to measure their speeds, but if this occurred, then it would contradict the absence of Superluminality! 7. Wave Front Superluminality, which has been confirmed, is an additional type of Superluminality to Inflation, and a similar argument to 3 above holds. 8. The alleged Instability of known Superluminal Spacecraft geometries (such as Alcubierre's, Lobos' , etc.) is reminiscent of the Wormhole arguments, which have been currently won by the pro-Wormhole researchers in arXiv. This raises a strong possibility of implausibility. 9. The deepest Logical-related Physics theory, Probable Causation/ Influence (PI), which is an analog of Lukaciewicz/Rational Pavelka Multivalued Logics, has no limitation against Superluminality and in fact its least upper bound on all variables, 1, represents in general INFINITY, unless it is a phase transition. Thus, light speed is either limited by a phase transition (to superluminality) or is infinite. 10. The absence of Human Scale Physics (HSP) DETECTION of Superluminality can no longer be regarded as an example of Einstein "Principle of Verification," since there are several known cases now which contradict this latter idea, including Randall-Sundrum and Kaluza Klein type higher dimensions, Superstring and Supersymmetric higher dimensions, Abbott's Flatland example (regarded as a "Thought Experiment" regarding erroneous conclusions in lower dimensions), etc. Osher Doctorow |