Why is it that in every argument about breaking the speed of light so little attention is addressed to causality. The simpler old tried and worn out arguments are trotted out, usually with a mention of how we, loosely speaking, ridiculed Copernicus and of course the old stand by Galileo, and thus 'anything is possible'. I believe the arguments are reduced to base level by so call science reporters who have not served their dues, do not do their homework and put all sorts of infantile, poorly thought out, and generally poorly sub edited copy. Yes, in the serious science journals we get the facts presented, generally very dry and hard to digest, but the story that emanates from these facts take years to develop and invariably is accompanied by confidence and error levels. In the meanwhile we have to put up with the BBQ chat of “why is the speed of light so strict, after all look what we did to Galileo”…. “Yeah right you are Wayne, want another beer.”
