On 2007-06-30, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 30, 8:07 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Shubee wrote:

Don't let Tom Robert's buffalo you into thinking that superluminality
is impossible.

I have never said it is "impossible".

Can you admit clearly and directly that postulating a law of
superluminality is consistent with all true observations and
mathematical facts currently known about our universe?

Obviously such a law _is_ inconsistent with all observations and
mathematical facts currently known about the universe. The two most
notable mathematical facts in this case being (1) a poincare invariant
theory, incomensurate observables corresponding to measurements of
spacelike separated events, commute, (2) general relativity doesn't
allow for superluminal propagation. Since what is currently known
about the universe is encapsulated in the standard model and general
relativity, only you will be unable to see the flaw in your assertion.
When a superluminal effect is observed, then you can come back and
say you told us so.

I merely point out:
A) No theory of modern physics includes it, and those theories
have extensive experimental support.

And I'm saying that that is masterful subterfuge because it truly
avoids the issue and the direct question put to you.

and
B) No experiment has ever observed it.

Don't let Shubee buffalo you into thinking some phenomenon exists until
it is observed experimentally. Or Cahill.... (be sure the observation is
SIGNIFICANT)

Tom Roberts

I have never said or implied that superluminality has been observed
experimentally. I have only argued for the acceptance of David
Hilbert's philosophy of physics.

No, you have only dropped Hilbert's name to try and prop up your
argument. Since Hilbert is dead and can't object to you surfing his
coattails, your use of his name only further destroys your credibility.

My tautology is irrefutable: All the
laws of physics may be divided into two distinct types. There are
physical laws that are the same in all frames of reference and there
may be laws that aren't.

When you find some experiment that demonstrates a law which depends
upon a universal frame of reference, let me know so I can read an article
about it written by someone that knows what he is talking about (i.e.,
not you).