General Comments: The Observer

            Relativists use f = c/λ(lambda) instead of f = v/λ(lambda) for in a vacuum frequencies/wavelengths. They maintain the maximum velocity of c no matter what, irrespective of the phase velocities.
And, the A to B points are observational, congruent with the theory of relativity being only observer oriented. They are not concerned with what goes on inside the light wave since they cannot observe it. Their entire method revolves around the observation.
            Their fear is that with superluminal velocities the very existence of spacetime itself may be modified beyond existence. However, think about it, the absence of light waves already exists. In parts of the Universe there is darkness. Right here on Earth, without our moon at night we would be in total darkness, except for the stars. So, what happens if there is no light? Nothing; matter-energy exists with light shining upon it as in the same manner as it exists with sunlight shining upon it. 
            Supposing some kind of superluminal velocity existed, it does not mean that everything that the relativists say would happen would actually happen. You could not travel back in time, because you cannot travel back in spacetime.
            Light speed is greater than sound, the speed of sound is extremely slower. Light communication can beat out the communication sent by sound; the bullet reaches before the sound of shot occurs.
            Superluminal velocity would mean if communication were possible on it, then something could be communicated ahead of light speed, but that does not mean light travels into the future because it communicates a signal before a sound wave signal. Or the sound wave signal may go back in time because it is slower than light speed.  Think about it. A smoke signal on the top of a mountain is communicated by light speed to the person standing on the other mountain top.
            Communication signals from Europe to the USA have a time-lag. No one travels into the future or into the past because of the difference in signal communication. One can shoot a pistol and a lantern of light emitting a s-o-s signal, and the s-o-s signal will arrive before the report of the pistol, but that might not save the person being shot at. Neither implies traveling into the past or into the future. They represent two distinct speeds of communication and physical phenomena.
            If there is a material phenomenon above light speed, it will take its place in the nature of things. The relativists assign to the idea of light speed as though it created the matter-energy. It is but one manifestation of the existence of spacetime/motion, not the creator or reason for being of the matter-energy of which it is made and upon which it shines its light.
            Imagine a photon particle lighting up each atom, molecule that exists on Earth. When you walk the streets next time, or ride in your car, look about and around you and just think how a photon coming from the Sun lights each and every particle/atom exposed on Earth. And, then how those photons are absorbed and/or re-emitted towards the retina of our eyes, and all the people around you are receiving the same/similar waves.
            Lights light up everything around you, but it does not create everything around you, although it contributes to growth of living beings. If light ceases to shine from the sun, everything will be in the dark no doubt, and will last as long as possible until frozen into non-existence.
            Unfortunately, we have not been taught to appreciate all that exists around us as much as possibly we should have been.
            The scientists who estimate that a certain number of atoms [1078 -1082] exist in the Universe. And, they invent a number about its quantity. There are more photons falling on the Earth every day than that number invented by them. This small number has always fascinated me. Before it was 1080, and now it is said to be1082. Surely the Creator must be having a good laugh where someone thinks so little of His creation.
            Had the estimate been 10∞ then I might be more in agreement.  I for one think that it is impossible to place a number on the Creation and all that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist.
            I once read somewhere where a scientist said that the 1082 number was so incredibly big. I think that the number of leaves that have existed on the trees on Earth or even the ones that exist right now on the trees on Earth far surpass that number; and the number changes every year, year in and year out. Next time you are out and about, just take note of all the trees (hopefully you live around trees) and the number of leaves on them, and then think about how many billions of years they have existed, year in year out changing their leaves, and changing them now. Then think 1082 and 10∞ .
            The fact that I can punch in 1082 on my pocket calculator and get the answer 10.0000000E81 worries me and causes me to doubt the estimate cited as 1078 - 1082  for the number of atoms in the Universe. If it can be abbreviated on my pocket calculator, then possibly it would be better to abbreviate it simply as Om.
            Even if one were to venture the estimate of ∞∞ I would be reticent to accept it as a proper abbreviation of this wonderful existence called The Universe.
Maybe, OmOm

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