What do I know? Nothing…I believe that time is the “universal constant”, not light –a light source will not “shine” before the light emitting source is "turned” on. To further explain my idea, please consider that if a star was born at a distance of eight light years away from your position on planet Earth, although the star already exists, unless you change your position and distance and stay right where you are for eight years, you will not see the “light” at any time before or after the eight light years. The star then was already created and producing light in all directions long before that light was seen from your position and yet time continued to pass.
Light will travel “this far” in “this” amount of time. So the possibility that Neutrino’s may be faster than light, only means that they also would travel “this far”, in “this” amount of time which could very well be faster, or slower, than light.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe Einstein is honestly wrong, E=mc2, simple right? Yet humans do make mistakes, and I can demonstrate that forces, magnetic fields and gravity for instance, can and do produce useable "work" requiring the use of "energy". Space and time are not two sides of the same coin, especially if space honestly is truly expanding. Time remains the constant, while space was proven to be expanding? FORCES are then the exception. The speed of time is independent of your frame of reference, it does not matter where you are, and it is the same for all and anything.
If cameras can now "record" photons in motion, we can now "record" faster than the speed of light. We can record at the speed, of time. This MIT students experiment has since been “debunked” because the camera that was used shutter speed, was not actually 3 trillion frames per second, which truly would have been faster than the speed of light, that it was only an effect of a pulsed laser, for a strobe like slow motion effect. Still, my argument stands that “Time is the universal constant” because you cannot ever get in front of “RIGHT NOW”.
The “universal speed limit” however would not be the speed of light; it would truly be “Instantaneous”, which is exhibited by “forces”. The effects of forces are present the “instant” that they are present, their effects are instantaneous. Friction is experienced the instant that it is present, gravity is instantaneous, regardless if it is taught or accepted by the mainstream. These forces are either there or they are not, magnetic fields are either present or not at all, and this is not the speed which you “move” the magnet to your refrigerator. With this, If you want to effect time you must manipulate time, manipulating speed will only manipulate “distances” in relation to “Time”, and time seemingly slows down the faster you or any object travels up to the point of "right now" or the instant after you departed, hence instantaneous travel is the fastest speed anything can travel, obeying the physical universal constant of time.
I understand that Physicists and Theoretical Physicists will certainly argue that this is incorrect, I am certain this will be ignored, based on the current space-time correlation that is taught today and was theorized by Einstein. Yet I ask you, the reader to please look at what actually occurs in the world around you today. Has anything ever, not obeyed the constant of time? Does anything ever, exceed the speed of time? Has anything ever made it in front of “RIGHT NOW”? Has anything ever gotten in front of the present?
If you could accelerate yourself or any other object in any given direction as fast or faster than the “speed of light” it would only enable you or the accelerating object to travel further and further “distances” in shorter and shorter amounts of “time” up to the point of instantaneous travel because of the fundamental truth that you can never get in front of “right now”, the “present time”, no matter how fast you or that object accelerate and travel in any given direction, even if it is in a circle, the distance traveled just would become greater and greater. So, I believe that you cannot get in front of time no matter how fast you or any object can travel “distances”. I believe that time and distances are two very different and separate things. Just like in my example of a star being born, you cannot ever reach your destination if you have not first departed, so you cannot ever arrive before you leave, no matter how fast you have traveled. The light that reaches your position eight light years distance away, was not emitted from that star until after that star was formed with the strength, energy, and intensity to travel that "distance" through “space” in a specific amount of “time”.
If two groups of people and a computer arrive to the same answers with the same equation, does it mean that they are using the correct equation? Neutrinos just may be faster than light, or Neutrinos may be slower than light, E=mc2 then would still be incorrect because using the speed of light squared would not provide anywhere near the correct amount of energy that truly exists today.
Because time and light do obey these rules, it enables us to virtually "see" into the past. Because when that light that reaches us on planet Earth, after eight light "years" have passed, we can see what that star looked like as it was, eight years ago when the faintest "glint" of light reached us on Earth after it was born. We can look into the past with the constant of light, speed, distances, and time, but we will never get in front of "Right Now" no matter how fast you or any object travel in any "direction".
Please consider that if energy is not gained nor lost, if these laws of physics and the laws of thermodynamics are correct, how is it that potential energy IS GAINED in an object when it is lifted up from a source of gravity? Go ahead and try it for yourself, lift something, anything up from off of the ground, then let go and let it fall, didn't 100% of the energy that you expended to lift it up, come right back as whatever you dropped surely reached back onto the ground from where it originated? Or, did you somehow give it that energy to fall back to its source of gravity?
Did you provide that force? I see, you GAVE it that potential energy just by lifting it up, but yet you still received 100% back of what was truly expended by lifting it up minus the energy expended to overcome that opposing force of gravity. So it travels 100% down, the distance of 100% of the distance up. Are any of your investments this good? 50% of the total energy for distance traveled was certainly free, because the lifted object did GAIN potential energy. An opposing force was still applied to it when you picked it up, and a force was still applied to it when you let go and discontinued applying a force against that opposing force.
Maybe someone out there can correct me or enlighten me, but until someone or something does successfully exceed the speed of time, the speed of the present time, right now, I believe that Physicists and Theoretical physicists alike should really think hard about rewriting their own rules and accepting reality. Science is a child, standing at a window, looking out, trying to explain what it is, they see. You cannot get in front of “right now”.
