Absolute nonsense. The ultimate fate of the Universe is interesting.
Will we indeed be ripped apart in n billion years. However all thi.s
has little to do with relativity as such. Special Relativity works,
all the experiments have proved it.

http://sites.google.com/site/aitrans...ome/relativity

Is a better website to which I have transferred my data. Relativity is
part of a larger site. All the experiments too have proved that
General Relativity works on the scale up to an including supermassive
black holes. Does GTR work without modifications on the largest (and
smallest) scales.

Well no one has ever claimed it was the ultimate theory. However the
following points remain.

1) Any theory must have GTR as one of its components. GTR must
represent a limiting case.

2) The sort of thing you have been considtently advocating is just
total nonsense.

You may have modified your views. What you seem to be advocating is
something similar to Deutsche Physik.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc.../tachyons.html

Interesting articles on philosopical cosequences of time travel.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...n-condensation

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?...nciple&spell=1

Tachyons in space time. This selection of papers shows that tachyons
are envisaged as being a part of inflation. Inflation is one thing
which expanded (paradox free BTW) FTL.

I have always been convinced that time travel (bulk matter) +FTL is a
complete impossibility. Particles are an interesting case though. As
the philosopical paper shows the paradox remains none the less. Self
consistency, which is what tachyons require implies a forknown future.
(there is in fact a philosophical distinction between determinism and
forknowledge. The Koran BTW talks very much about determinism (I think
it really means foreknowledge). The time of you death is known. Of
course if you then go and blow yourself up it will be known. This is
determinism though.

The really interesting point is that the tachyon, like other particles
is a quantum mechanical entity with uncertainlty. This gives a future
which is only partially determined.

None of this however is at all relevant to what you have been
consistently saying.


- Ian Parker