re:
Toleman - > Surface brightness test are not 'obeying' the requirements of expansion, as those papers indicate.... add to this the redshift anomalies, quasars, wmap anomalies, quasar time-dilations..... etc.
My point is, the only example you gave was "oh well the expansion of the universe can be >c".
To me, thats just a mathematical thought experiment. I'd like something testable... the 'information' and 'energy' examples of >c have been provided with independent techniques and lab experiments. Of course once results hit the einstein theories it becomes 'impossible'.
Yes I know requested lab cosmological-time-space expansion tests are not available. I don't know where you will go from here. On the flipside, i've seen enough evidence on longitudinal transmission and entanglement experiments to be convinced c does not represent a limit, at which point sr has been violated and relativity time vanishes.
Re Mark: Thats cool... I don't believe in time travel either... alot of the paradoxes still relate to your relative theory though, how this 'interaction' is communicated. I'm happy to do away with time-dilation it'self... i don't consider it to be a 4th dimension of physics.
The longer we keep playing the relativity game... the longer nonsense like this will continue:
Hawkings:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...e-machine.html
LHC phantoms:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/la...-1225788270808
I'm leaning towards c just being a ratio of energy and mass, not a limit as required by SR intern GR, and no need for an introduction of a 4th D time in to physics. Once we do away with this, we can do away with the paradoxes.
4d:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q9IePuHut4
EPR paradox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WfydkWLIkk
Slit wave/packet/particle paradox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOwTV-HgDUo
I don't subscribe to the rope hypothesis mentioned, but the relativity summarizations in these videos outline some difficulties i have swallowing consensus when 'hand waving' is applied. I'm of the opinion the theory with variable time presented will be blasted away when the mentioned experiments that violate c are explained.
I best respectfully bow out, so that this conjecture can continue. Carl has some good points on direction of this dynamic impedance of the theory.
Best
Alex