General Comments: Superluminal Velocities

            The relativists appear to be afraid of any spacetime event that might overturn the tenets of the special and general theories of relativity. For example, they apparently fear that if the self-defined limit of the speed of light in a vacuum is surpassed by some superluminal speed, then their idea of causality will be broken or destroyed.
            In my mind at least, a faster-than-light (FTL) event will not affect the idea of causality in spacetime/motion.
            First of all, superluminal velocities already exist, and have existed since the beginning of time. The relativists themselves have computed superluminal velocities for the phase velocities of the speed of light in a vacuum. But, even though they have identified superluminal phase velocities these are not given their proper recognition. Superluminal velocities of electromagnetic light particle-waves have a material basis and require an explanation in terms of matter-energy events in spacetime/motion.
            The self-defined limit of the speed of light in a vacuum rests then upon its own superluminal phase velocities ---according to the relativists' own findings.
            However, the relativists interpret the problematique of superluminal velocities as creating the possibility of traveling back in time. Hence, the perceived break up of the relationship of causality or causation among within spacetime events. The relativists have played with the concept of traveling back in time for a long time. They appear to be infatuated by the concept and the possibility of being to travel back in time. In fact, they appear to actually believe that such a possibility may exist if some "thing" were to travel faster than light.
            The relativist writing and discussing the possibility of time travel demonstrates the fact that the relativists have never really broken with the separate concepts of space and time. Supposedly Einstein proposed the idea of spacetime, which supposedly forms the basis of the theory of relativity and its related affirmations. This word-concept, spacetime, has purportedly been the sustenance of the theory of relativity for 108 years now.
            In discussing the idea of time travel consider how the relativists maintain intact the concept of time, separate from that of space. From the theoretical perspective of the word-concept spacetime, and the proposition that spacetime is one, then one would suppose that spacetime cannot be separated. Hence, if the relativists write and speak about "looking back in time" or "traveling back in time", they do so based upon absolute and separate concepts of space and time.
            For the questing affirmations propose the idea that it might be possible to travel back in time. They do not say look back or travel back in "spacetime".
            We cannot go back in time, for the same reasons that we cannot go back in space, for the same reasons that we cannot go back in spacetime. Generally relativists recognize the direction of time and not that of space. But, space also has a direction: think of gluing back together the pieces of a broken cup. And, more exactly, spacetime has a direction to its development.
            Relativists misconceive the meaning of spacetime as their discourse in science constantly treats subjects such as space and time in a separate manner ---irrespective of the cases where they write the word spacetime as one. They question whether one might be able to go back in time, without ever wondering whether one could go back in space. And, it appears that they never treat the idea of going back in "spacetime". They speak about going back in time, as though one could actually go back in time without going back in space (spacetime).
            And, that is the practical problem of this aspect of the theory of relativity. If one maintains the theoretically separate concept of time as distinguished from space, then one might play with the idea of treating each one separately. When, in fact, in theory and in practice, there is no possibility of traveling back in time, without necessarily traveling back in space. Such fantasy theoretical rambling, like looking back or traveling back in time, merely shows how far such discourse is from comprehending spacetime.
             In other words, a more complete and exact statement concerns the possibility of traveling back in spacetime. In other words, it is not a misguided case of traveling back in time, but whether someone/thing can travel back in spacetime/motion. The answer is a redundantly emphatic "no" to this obviously rhetorical question.
            But, there is no possibility of a spatial event traveling back in time as though one could be separated from the other. Moreover, given the conditions of existence of spacetime/motion of matter-energy events, there is no possibility of a given spacetime/motion event traveling back in spacetime/motion. To do so, or even to propose such a possibility, is to violate the direction and conditions of the existence of spacetime/motion itself.
            Every day, here on Earth, we are bathed in 8-minute old sunlight. The fact that we can see the sun eight minutes ago does not mean that we have traveled back in time. Or, the fact that we observe the light emitted from galaxies 13.8 billion light years away from us does not mean we have traveled back in time to the supposed Big Bang, or that such a possibility exists as erroneously conceived.
            The deficient theoretical conception derives from the relativist misunderstanding of what faster-than-light velocities might mean for the conditions of existence of matter-energy in spacetime/motion.
            This deficiency in the theoretical conception of special relativity concerns the word-concept spacetime. The relativists supposedly eliminated the idea of absolute space and absolute time. Nonetheless, they created the absolute concept of spacetime, itself based on the absolute maximum limit of the speed of light in a vacuum per their definition. The concept of time [a second] in the term c also becomes an absolute theoretical concept for the chosen unit of time. The idea of a maximum velocity for matter-energy winds up representing an absolute concept of time, attributed to an absolute material phenomenon, the photon (which again is massless, so immaterial).
            The theory of relativity establishes the absoluteness of the concept of the speed of light in a vacuum. This derives from conceptualizing the speed of light in the measurement of an absolute distance, from point A to point B. The abstracted absolute distance between these two chosen points further defines the time of flight of the light particle-wave (photon) ---one second of time. All the while, the abstracted straight line or midline of the supposed travel of the electromagnetic light particle-wave does not exist in reality. There is no force of energy that lies along the axial straight line.
            The theory of relativity forms then a theory of observation, but to a very limited sense. This is proven by the fact that the method of measurement for the speed of light is based on a prima facie observation of light traveling between two selected abstract points (A,B). They supposedly "see and measure" the light from point A to point B, by pure observation (visual, mechanical, electrical or otherwise), without any consideration for the internal nature of the electromagnetic particle-wave. Again, at times they study the phase velocities of c, but they identify these as being meaningless, since they do not communicate information or carry a signal.
In fact, it is the particle-wave sine wave that actually communicates the signal/information, not the abstracted axial straight line from point A to point B.
            Einstein stated that all laws of physics are the same for all frames. Yet, he pushed for the variability frames of reference according to relativity. This appears to be an obvious contradiction. He eliminated the absolute nature of space and time, yet placed an absolute maximum on the speed of light.
            The horizontal axis in the theory of relativity hold over the practice of having a timeline, where the horizontal axis represents time, or the timeline. This is a practice that maintains the absolute concept of time and space as separate concepts. The timeline must necessarily be that of spacetime, as these are said to be inseparable.
Incorrect, but the general, traditional practice shows the timelime as foolows:


            Now, the correct perspective that is no where to be found in works on the theory of relativity would propose the folowing spacetimeline:

spacetime line

            The theoretical problem for the theory of relativity is that it maintains the four dimensions as of the 3-1 split: three dimensions of space and one dimension of time separately.
By the definition of spacetime, the dimensions must be spacetime each for all four:

x-axis spacetime
y-axis spacetime
z-axis spacetime
time-axis spacetime

            The discussion of how this is achieved in theory will have to wait until the second tome of this analysis, when I treat the theme of gravity. But, suffice it to point out here, that the relativists maintain the concepts of space and time as absolutes, in spite of having attempted to propose the idea of spacetime.

The Humpty-Dumpty Rule…"couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again"…

The Broken Cup Example

Cup intact   -   cup broken   -  cup glued   -    broken cup glued together

space line

time line

            When relativists talk about looking back or traveling back in time, they take for granted that it is a spatial event that travels back in time, thus separating space and time.

Generally, when one observes a timeline, the fact that the object represented on the timeline is overlooked, taken for granted as a space line phenomenon. They take for granted the fact that back in time means back in space; i.e., back in spacetime.  It is not a question (as they suggest or imply) that some spatial thing travels back in time. The "spatial thing" is also a spacetime event. It cannot go back in time, just as it cannot go back in space, in the sense of going back to its prior spatial composition.

©2014 Copyrighted. Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved.