Strange

How do you know that? I assume by "logical" you are using the informal sense of "makes sense to me, personally". That isn't helpful on a science site. Although, there is no evidence for it, it is not illogical for the universe to come from nothing. But, if you think there really is a logical argument to make, then you need to make it using logic rather than an unsupported assertion.

Space-time is used to describe x,y,z,t dimension (the clue is in the name!) The fourth dimension is time. I'm not sure how the "substance" of space (if there is such a thing) can be considered a dimension. Imagine you want to meet up with someone. You need to specify 4 dimensions: the location (3) and the time (1). You don't need to specify the substance of where you meet.

Actually, thinking about it more, I think the trouble is that they are independent (to some extent). I am not sure, but I suspect this is where the error is. I'm trying to think how to prove it. The identity [math]\sin^2 \upsilon+\cos^2\upsilon=1[/math] is (obviously) only true if you have the same [math]\upsilon[/math] in both places. You have: [math]\sin{\upsilon}= \frac{\sin\frac{\lambda}{2}}{\cos\frac{\phi}{2}}[/math] And: [math]\cos{\upsilon'}= \frac{\cot\alpha}{\cot\frac{\phi}{2}}[/math] Do we know that [math]\upsilon = \upsilon'[/math] (always) In other words, do we know that: [math]\arcsin{\frac{\sin\frac{\lambda}{2}}{\cos\frac{\phi}{2}}} = \arccos{\frac{\cot\alpha}{\cot\frac{\phi}{2}}}[/math] Unless [math]\upsilon[/math] is uniquely determined by the values of [math]\lambda[/math] and [math]\alpha[/math]. And I'm not sure that is true. Can the three variables can change independently? Is the identity only true for the angles prescribed by your animation?

I guess this is because the three variables [math]\upsilon[/math], [math]\lambda[/math], [math]\phi[/math]are not independent.

1. You are continuing your annoying habit of never giving references for your quotations (and annoying images). 2. From that same page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon for those who are interested): The linked page on tachyon condensation points out that "imaginary mass" has no physical meaning, it just indicates that the system is unstable. So no imaginary masses, no faster than light travel and no inconsistency of the standard model with itself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_field And, of course, this happened 13 billion years ago ... It says what? That the standard model is not based on SR? That the standard model is inconsistent with itself? As neither of those are true, I can only assume you have misunderstood it.

No it doesn't.

I'm against making everyone drive on the same side of the road because it impinges on peoples freedom.

Obviously not. You are saying the standard model is inconsistent with ... the standard model. Please just stop posting this nonsense.

FFS. The Higgs mechanism is part of the Standard Model which is built on special relativity. Just stop posting nonsense.

Just pointing out your errors to make sure others don't get as confused as you!

What has "anti-gravity" got to do with anything. (Although, by this definition of "anti-gravity", my chair is an antigravity device.) The thread is about whether photons have mass. Yep. Spacetime. Can we get back to photons now. If you want to start a thread on why you think relativity is wrong, please do so.

Here: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9811442 I can't see how Bligh gets the data he claims from that paper. But,as far as I can tell from his website, he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about so it is all moot. So we can just ignore that brown dwarf nonsense.

Yes, Einstein used that as a metaphor for space-time in a speech. It is normally only repeated by anti-relativity cranks. Erm... space and time. (Or, more precisely, the geometry of space and time.) Because it is generally considered confusing and misguided to reuse a term that had a well-established meaning for something else. It would be like calling oxygen phlogiston because, you know, fire.

There is no aether. There is not, and never has been, any evidence or necessity for a mythical aether.

No. c is always the same. SR is based on that. It isn’t based on the speed of light in a medium.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_field And, of course, this happened 13 billion years ago ... Huh?

Right. But nothing there about Higgs bosons going faster than light.

Do they? There was a huge fuss when it was (mistakenly) thought that neutrinos, which are nearly massless, travel faster than light. I assume there would have been even bigger headlines if a really massive particle travelled faster than light. Do you have a reference for this? No. I have never seen anything saying that c can change. Reference?

But that is impossible so ...

I'm confused. What is "the reference frame for space"? The refractive index of all materials is greater than 1. Are you saying the refractive index of the vacuum can be more than 1? For some frames of reference? How does that work?

Oh. I thought that was a simple way of getting the information without paying for a subscription. Someone didn't agree, I guess. (I don't usually care about downvotes, but that one seems a bit bizarre! )

I guess you mean: n xem/t = c. What is the point of squaring it? I not sure how this is related to SR though ...

Well, either they got it wrong or you copied it wrong. Can you give your source? There nearest I can find here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation is: vem = c/n. (Which is basically the equation for refractive index.)

Then your equation can't be correct. c is a velocity (m/s), n is dimensionless and t is time so it fails dimensional analysis.