IANWMP wrote:I think it's silly that so many people insist on being close minded. I never once became convinced that the speed of particles was limited by Einstein's postulates and essentially Lorentz equations. My primary reason for this response is simple, we do not have even a fraction of full knowledge to come up with such limitations.
On the contrary, step on over to MDD and you will be greeted with open arms by dozens of open minded people who do not believe particles are limited by Einsteins postulates for the very reason you give.
IANWMP wrote:The only reason particles theoretically cannot go faster than the speed of light is because the speed of light is a variable in the equations it'self.
The only reason why the speed of light is not a distance (per the Ceeboo thoery) is because the equations say so.
IANMWMP wrote:We do not know that there are not other forces at work here, forces that are beyond our senses and responses that have effects on everything.
And science would be better off if it assumed transcending forces exist in spades and published journals that read like episodes of Fringe rather than science journals, right? One issue would tip the hat to Widstoe's theory that intelligence fills all matter and the next might take up the pressing weight of the Astral world upon visible reality. We'd really be getting somewhere then, wouldn't we? All that open-mindedness. MDD would be ecstatic.
Why should the speed of light be a constant? Who decided on that speed?
The question is whether or not the speed of light is constant.
IANWMP wrote:Isn't it peculiar that light travels at that speed and look at time dilation, doesn't it all seem to be hiding something more meaningful?
No. Or, it's not any more peculiar than Planck time being 10 -43 seconds. If there is some deeper variable more "meaningful", it will seem less meaningful to you once it is understood. You will then be looking for something hiding behind that.
