Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 8:49 AM Hi Ranga,
About the presentation of the superluminal explanation, my first few articles were presented as you suggest – something like, “Assume that an object is moving superluminally. How would we see it?” The immediate response is something like, “Nothing can move superluminally. So shuddup!” Of course, they put it more scientifically, like, “The proposed model violates Lorentz invariance and is non-physical.” I then needed to point out that the space where Lorentz invariance is respected is PR, and the space where I consider superluminality is a model for AR.
I understand your uneasiness with my philosophical analysis. It does lack rigor and is not as tightly argued as a philosopher’s analysis. But on the physics side, my “theory” is both verifiable and falsifiable.
One thought on “What is Real? Discussions with Ranga.”
Comments are closed.