Replies

*Abstract*
We propose here two new transformations between inertial frames that apply
for relative velocities greater than the speed of light, and that are
complementary to the Lorentz transformation, giving rise to the Einstein
special theory of relativity that applies to relative velocities less than
the speed of light. The new transformations arise from the same
mathematical framework as the Lorentz transformation, displaying singular
behaviour when the relative velocity approaches the speed of light and
generating the same addition law for velocities, but, most importantly, do
not involve the need to introduce imaginary masses or complicated physics
to provide well-defined expressions. Making use of the dependence on
relative velocity of the Lorentz transformation, the paper provides an
elementary derivation of the new transformations between inertial frames
for relative velocities v in excess of the speed of light c, and further we
suggest two possible criteria from which one might infer one set of
transformations as physically more likely than the other. If the
energy-momentum equations are to be invariant under the new
transformations, then the mass and energy are given, respectively, by the
formulae m=(pinf/c)[(v/c)2 - 1]-1/2 and e=mc2 where pinf denotes the
limiting momentum for infinite relative velocity. If, however, the
requirement of invariance is removed, then we may propose new mass and
energy equations, and an example having finite non-zero mass in the limit
of infinite relative velocity is given. In this highly controversial topic,
our particular purpose is not to enter into the merits of existing
theories, but rather to present a succinct and carefully reasoned account
of a new aspect of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, which properly
allows for faster than light motion.

I asked someone at Vortex to produce their evidence of C not being a constant... Here’s his response. It does not strike me as particularly compelling, but I never heard of the Sagnac effect before this.

The Sagnac effect is a very good example.

Then there are various interferometry drift experiments, and most have
shown some degree of drift, just far less that a static aether the earth
moves through, positive results are more common than not. Results are often
interpreted to agree with SR, but they don’t.

Then there are findings of the speed of light not being constant (which
might be a slightly separate things) varying along with the fine structure
constant.

Pulsar FTL has been widely reported, here is just one I found:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/10/pulars-superluminal-speeds-really-faster-than-speed-of-light.html

GPS Satellites have been reported to disagree with SR.. (below)

http://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html <If the speed of light
was always the same, then why do you have to move the mirror for it to be
moving??? Wouldn’t virtual particles (and photons at that) be immune to
such ‘extra motion?

Podkletnov, Tesla, A submission to the International Tesla Symposium of an
FTL transmission by a researcher (may be locatable)

You must also consider that if you try and measure the 2 way speed of light
which really isn’t necessary (clocks can be synced together and separated
at low speed), but it greatly reduces the effects of motion since it adds
and removes speed, and then Lorentz transformations in an aether can make
it impossible with the 2 way speed.
Also consider that if you were trying to measure the speed of sound as a 2
way thing, and with cars moving toward and away from you, would you notice
the speed of sound effected?
If you were in a speeding car with the windows up and measured the speed of
sound, still no change.
If you measured the 2 way speed of sound on a fast moving platform with
wind moving by, would you measure a difference? Yes but only small since
the a mix of faster and slower sound readings.

I suggest that you look closely at anything claiming to be evidence of SR
and do your own interpretation....

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html

What does one of the world’s foremost experts on GPS have to say about
relativity theory and the Global Positioning System? Ronald R. Hatch is the
Director of Navigation Systems at NavCom Technology and a former president
of the Institute of Navigation. As he describes in his article for this
issue (p. 25, IE #59), GPS simply contradicts Einstein’s theory of
relativity. His Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory (MLET) has been
proposed32 as an alternative to Einstein’s relativity. It agrees at first
order with relativity but corrects for certain astronomical anomalies not
explained by relativity theory. (Also see IE #39, p. 14.)