initiate

If you let the discussion evolve, its my expectation that it will eventually delve into science, or the shores of it.

Look i have absolutely no problem with you people coming to my face and saying: "i think youre totally wrong". But coming here and declaring that: I mean the subject of this discussion is phylosophical, were not even arguing if something is correct or incorrect, you just want it to immediately jump into science or to relate to science. Well, that's the point. We're, or at least im not, discussing science, yet. I have 2 responses for that: thanks and thats too much of being an apologist. Just forget it. I saw this coming, I understand where you're coming from, because i understand relativity, for the most part (im an engineer), it just wont be fruitful, i guess im trying something too.... unconventional. Finally, thanks to Ajb and Etereoctopus, I appreciate your input. "You can't take the criticism personally or you won't last" I take your criticism, but i think its criticism that just doesnt apply. It is the kind of criticism that if i were to come here with a mathematical theorem and you spotted flaws (and I would totally accept the criticism in such case). My rebuttals are of an argumentative nature, rather than scientific. You just mistook the nature of the discussion im trying to foment. But as you said, you want strict rigor, so ill let this discussion die out. Also you take the criticism as well.

Because im not sure either what i am trying to find here. I hoped you guys would be more positive when presented with deep abstractions, after all you're scientists, or at least educated ppl, or so i like to think. I more or less hoped you people would play along and give similar phylosophical input to try to collectively build something more solid. And if youre interested in what i have to say, then its NOT my responsibility to meet your demands of intellectual writing and discussion, and less with that attitude. YOU dont be lazy and try to add something of substance to the discussion rather than coming here with your -entirely negative- posture. You people really feel like you were some sort of authority that gets to declare what is intellectually valuable and what is not. Pretentious, and this is regardless of the kind content you judge.

woah you guys, now take it easy, i see that somebody even rated my argument with only 1 star (though that's perfectly ok). It is very incomplete, open ended and ambiguous, it was intended to be so. "It's so open-ended there's no way to answer with any specifics." Thats the point. You guys are too preocupied with trying to extrapolate and interpret my suggestion directly into scientific literature (and to answer "any specifics"), and that says something about you all.

My point here is very simple: What if relativity and all of its implications, were just the product of context? What if we shifted the very notions and axioms that physics rests upon. Why is time important? How is then and now different? What if we did consider distance in a different context? With a different deffinition? Making such claims as: there is no difference between point A and point B, even though A=/B, the difference might be just... how we think of it. Why is distance importat? Why is distance relevant? On what do we base any given proposition for its relevance? What is distance? (in a spatial sense) My point is not about trying to rebute relaitvity in any way, but more, to try to expand on it, to see under what kind of train of thought it was concieved, what it relied upon, on what ideas, and to see if it missed something or theres something more. If the ground itself on which it is standing is also dependent on even lower ground (not the newtonian ground). Ill leave it at that.

This is just a silly idea of mine, so dont get ahead of yourself. Lets say we have a pipe that's 1 km tall and its filled with distilled water, its standing up and it is made of a material that has the required compressive, tensile and shearing strengths for it not to collapse or break apart, also its in perfect equilibrum. Next, through a double door mechanism, we introduce an object that has lower density than distilled water so it floats, eventually getting up to the tip of the pipe. Then we let it fall through another 1 km pipe that has a dynamo every 5m, slowing down the object and transforming its kinetic energy into electricity until it hits the ground, then just rinse and repeat. Where did i go wrong to assume this thing can break the laws of thermodynamics? And wether or not its a machine that creates energy, is this, in purely a theoretical context, possible?

hmmm... yeah yeah i get it. Even if there were no propagation of light and that somehow removed the light barrier, then "superluminal" massive particles would still be able to send signals... though that opens up new questions. Well anyway, now lets say that no signal can be detected in any way, superluminal or otherwise. Would just the lack of causality violations be enough to break the light barrier?

Say there were no photons, and therfore no light, though electromagnetism is otherwise unaffected. Would a "light" barrier still hold? I understand the question is extremely simplistic.

Why travel at superluminal speeds equals to time travel to the past? P.D: Elaborate as you see fit, verbally (colloquially and/or terminologically) and/or mathematically

mmm, great! thanks! this is so interesting

I got a, pretty much amateur conjecture i deem of interest for the educated people around here. As we know, the closer a massive body approaches c, the more mass it gains. Now as much as I know, volume isnt subject to change here (correct me if im wrong), so the only value that increases here is density. The asymptotic nature of this scenario means that there is no limit to how much mass a massive particle can gain as it approaches light speed. So my conjecture is this: wouldnt any particle or body with mass become a black hole when it reaches a certain percentage of light speed?

I just had a small question about relativity. Say there is a universe that happens to have the exact same physical constants to our own except 1, their c is equal to 2 times our c. Could such universe permit particles with mass to travel at speeds that are considered superluminal to our own universe?