Speed of Light Barrier

Hey Mod, perhaps you can help with this and tie it into the thread head.I have been getting originally unsolicted e-mail fromfor some time now and I have been replying but I am starting to think that his ideas violate TIME in respect to the speed of light?

quote:

---

The story begins with a researcher called Giovanni Amelino-Camelia. Working on quantum gravity in Rome, he decided to find a theoretical solution to solve one of modern physics big problems unexpectedly high energies of cosmic rays. To do this, he formed a new addition to the theory of special relativity.

​

The basis of doubly special relativity, which this is now called, is that the universe possesses two, not one absolute values. In Einsteins original relativity, we have the speed of light as a constant, independent of the frame of reference for the observer. In doubly special relativity, there is also a threshold energy/length, which is true for all observers.

​

So far, so simple? But this small change makes a huge difference. By SR, the length of an object is entirely dependent on the particular observer. If I were moving at a different speed from you, I would see an object entirely differently. But in certain branches of physics, the laws of physics around an object are very dependent on its length, resulting in the absurd suggestion that the laws of physics are different for each person. In attempting to unify the different laws of quantum mechanics, where the Planck length/energy represents the point where quantum laws become apparent, this is especially problematic. If we follow DSR, and use the Planck energy as a universe absolute threshold, all observers can determine the laws of physics in the same way, and this problem is solved. The unification of quantum theory and relativistic theory is made a lot easier.
http://physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=129

---

I got that by googling his name today.In particular he seems to have an extension that is against Poincare's notion of return point (in this time) or the clock of Einstein. I dont really know. I really cant tell if I'm just in South AMerica on this or if there really is something interesting here. Perhaps one of the physics people can respond as well and show up more in JustinC's question.OKTAR has some material in two places here:
http://physicsastronomy.com/list.php?f=14&collapse=0He has a dubious, to me,bye-bye line "Satan Trust uS"Would the speed of light be a barrier in this kind of time?Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.

If I understand the concept of the "ordertype" (Cantor's)then it seems (as to if one had "seen" light rays, calculations on photons interacting with matter etc...)iT provides an "alternative" (possible (If tHe phyiscs was done etc. etc etc., to the analytic geometry involved or invovlable et. al.)from a/the 'magnitude' of a vector (the scalar part) and the infinity that might be cardinally organizaed could be devolved on the imaginary plane could it (ordinally) not else one is speaking of an idol or else*** things humanely measured faster than said quantification recorded for all to read?

son said,

quote:

---

I'm just saying in the context of special relativity "c" can be explained by the fact that light forms a 45 degree Minkowski angle to the any axis of any observer.
&cave had,

This is a convenience... it is not real. What is "45 degrees" in the t-x plane of Minkowski space? You think "45 degrees" as a result of embedding the t-x plane in a positive definite space... i.e. a sheet of paper/diagram.

​

---

Can it not be real?Kant considered the NEWTON's (SG's case where Newtonism is retained elsewhere in (the) theory)solar system as dimensionally "flat". What if said sheet of "definite" space where nothing else than the 'plane' made by connecting the Opportunity and Spirit's landing locals on Mars extended and intersecting the geometry of the planents that Kant deprecated Brahe's "crystal spheres" of and have it given that some kind of "sulfur" life or fossils are found on the red planent and asteriods that fit the angle of the landing sites but a different group of earth hitting asteriods AND the shape of life on this alien Mars of I Kant has genetic variation that can be statistically analyzed to have been correlated with "observers" of this life at the 45degree quantity?If that was so then the tangent reference point in morphometrics under affine transforms would be resolvable in Remanian geometry and if the sulfer energetics of said such life had a gravitaionally apprehendable differences in phenotypes optimized for some to be concocted fitness function then it is not strictly true to say the the "angle" of Son is "not real".It is only the mathematical physicist who is not in tune with the topology of clade fusions' visions that would be consequent that would have caused the statement against reality. Possibility is not actuality but inexistence is not probability either.