🚀 go-pugleaf

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:552af58f-eef4-4673-bf14-1749e00a39f1@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> The Royal Society performed the first revolution in 1919 but:
>
> http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-this-is.html
> "With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
> starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
> Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
> - Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
> cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
> nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."
>
> The Royal Society should have considered Einstein's 1911 equation
> c'=c(1+V/c^2): it is consistent with the gravitational redshift factor
> 1+V/c^2 confirmed experimentally and therefore "Newtonian gravity"
> correctly predicts the variation of the speed of light in a
> gravitational field. On the other hand, Einstein's "theory" turned out
> to be an incomparable money-spinner so Einstein's 1911 equation
> c'=c(1+V/c^2) was swept under the rug.
>
> Twelve years ago (the Royal Society is still just shocking the public
> and making money):
>
> http://www.totse.com/en/technology/space_astronomy_nasa/ftltravl.html
> "ASTRONOMERS PREDICT FASTER THAN LIGHT SPACE TRAVEL. It is boldly
> going where no reputable scientific body has gone before.
> Contradicting Einstein, the normally conservative Royal Astronomical
> Society is about to publish a report predicting that mankind will be
> able to travel faster than the speed of light. The breakthrough means
> that Star Trek fantasies of interstellar civilisations and voyages
> powered by warp drive are now no longer the exclusive domain of
> science fiction writers...Crawford argues that modern physics may
> allow two possible ways around Einstein's theory....The theories will
> boost growing interest among scientists in the possibility of
> travelling faster than light. The IPS, whose members include several
> NASA engineers, starts its first conference shortly in Halifax, Nova
> Scotia."
>
> Six years ago (concern is growing in the Royal Society, a second
> revolution may be just around the corner):
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
> "A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
> thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
> relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
> Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
> laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
> also thought to exist.....AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS
> EINSTEIN'S BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME -
> 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum.....Rees, Hawking and others are so
> concerned at the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a
> private conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading
> cosmologists."
>
> Recent hints at a second revolution:
>
> http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=3880
> Royal Society: "Newton beats Einstein in polls of scientists and the
> public."
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2005/01/26/ecrein26.xml&sSheet=/connected/2005/01/26/ixconnrite.html
> Martin Rees: "Although there's something rather noble about the way he
> persevered in his attempts to reach far beyond his grasp, in some
> respects the Einstein cult sends the wrong signal. It unduly exalts
> "armchair theory", which by itself would achieve little."
>
> And yet the Royal Society's second revolution remains unfinished. It
> really is just around the corner: "AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS
> EINSTEIN'S BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME -
> 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum."
>
> Pentcho Valev

  There isn't any faster than light travel. For you or the Royal Ass Society 
to think that there is is for all of you to be ignorant of a paralleling 
"now" throughout the universe never showing up in light or the speed of 
light:

Loosely:
..................t(History)--------------------)/..t|Observer (now)|
..................t()---------------------)/
..................t()--------------)/-o
..................t()---------)/.............-o
..................t()-----)/..........................-o
t|object (now)|/.........................................-ot|Observer (now)|

Line of travelers' travel ( / ). The traveler will see only rapidly 
advancing historical time-frames along the route to the object destination. 
You'll notice there is no line of history (light) between the traveler (now) 
and the ever more distant observer (now). There will be no history (no 
light) whatsoever between any now and any other [paralleling] now! No 
history at all! No light at all!

"-o" Very loosely, where observer observes traveler to be PER SPEED OF LIGHT 
COMMUNICATION OF POSITION AND VELOCITY when traveler has actually already 
arrived at the destination. The observer never deals in "now" (localized) at 
any distance! But, the observer will deal in "history" (non-locality). The 
observer will observe position and velocity for a traveler, neither of which 
( position nor velocity) will have anything to do with the distant object 
traveler.

 If you can see how it goes you realize there is no such thing as traveling 
faster than light no matter how fast you travel.

GLB