As near as I can tell, the main argument against information travelling faster than the speed of light is that of causality. Most folks accept that effect cannot precede cause (in absolute time). Note how this is different from the assertion that time is relative. I tend to think that witnessing an effect before a cause does not necessarily violate causality. Like being struck by a bullet before hearing the gun go off. How is it different if we switch the media from sound to light?
Tom van Flandern has argued that the speed of gravity is much faster than light (like at least 200billion times c) in
physics letters A 250. Steven Carlip argued against him in
Aberration and the Speed of Gravity. Carlip accepts as a given that gravitic effects appear to arrive at earth from the sun much faster than the speed of light, even instantaneously. His argument against this effect is purely mathematical, and he suggests that some velocity-dependant factor in the formula almost cancels out the effects of propagation delay. He states other interpretation models are of course possible, but would cost the unity of the current mathematical model.
As for me, I've got my very own theory. It goes like this:
AngleWyrm's Gravitic Aether Pressure Theory.
Gravity is not an attractive force, it is a pressure experienced by all matter as it rushes "upward" through the aether. Aether is a sort of rain pressure/resistance that is the "downward" push that is imagined in the rubber-mat imagery, that causes things to roll downhill.
Hey, it seems to work for me
Re: The Shalimar Treaty
Threaded Mode