And you look stupid posting insults in German, instead of specifically explaining exactly WHY something is crap. Too bad your emotional ferver doesn't extend to scientific rigor - you'd have a Nobel prize by now.
Also, this VERY interesting study of the speed of gravity, was done by Dr. Van Flandern, PhD Astronomy, who worked at the U.S. Naval Observatory for 21 years and became Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office. What, exactly are your scientific credentials in comparison, if I might ask? As well, I haven't posted this article in years - so take the pin out of your butt and accept that it exists.
Not only does the Special Theory of Relativity address all these questions you claim it does not address, it does indeed discuss precisely what objects can be seen in co-moving Lorentz frames at the speed of light, and which ones cannot.
Nonsense. Theoretical inertial reference frames have nothing to do with the speed of gravity. Stop throwing out fancy terms to muck up the works just because you once took a physics class and copied the glossary. In addition, Special Relativity denies acceleration past c - but tachyon theory posits speeds already faster than c, so needing no such acceleration. And there are a great many physicists who believe such particles exist, by the way, even though they have yet to be proven (like many other aspects of physics these days). So your extreme agitation against this subject is way out of line - again, take the pin out of your butt, because this exists as a valid subject.
Your original statement is also incorrect: the Theory of Relativity is not only older than 111 years -- because it already existed in Maxwell's Equations as far back as 1861 -- but the fact of relativity is a good deal older than that: about 15 billion years older.
Talk abut picking nits! And just imagine Einstein's embarrassment - what a plagiarist he turned out to be! To think, it took 111 years before YOU could come along and reveal that he was a fraud! You really should publish - people need to know this! Poor Maxwell, the unacknowledged discoverer of the Theory of Relativity. Also, I guess all of physics is actually 15 billion years old, given your logic - right? Even the stuff we don't know yet, because hey, it's there. And there's no difference between knowing and not knowing things, so why count? In fact, why have any history of science at all - it's all already here!
And your original reasoning is mistaken. By analogy, the fact that the Earth is round is about 5 billion years old, even if we've only known it for around 3,000 years. But no matter how many more years pass, no matter how old our civilization gets to be, we aren't going to discover that the Earth is not round. And we aren't going to discover that the FTL travel is possible.
I really don't kow what to say to this, because it's obvious that you're using it as a demonstration of what you think passes for logic. It's breathtaking, I'll give you that. Did you write the first draft in crayon, or did you throw caution to the wind and go directly to pen?
I have a PhD in Physics.
In contrast, the author of the "research" you cite is a quack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern. He does not have a degree in physics at all, and claimed that the General Theory of Relativity was wrong. No mainstream physicist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, or astronomer accepts his views, which have been thoroughly demolished. Here are at least two treatments that do so:
Marsh, Gerald E; Nissim-Sabat, Charles (1999). "Comment on "The speed of gravity"". Physics Letters A 262 (2–3): 257. Bibcode:1999PhLA..262..257M. doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(99)00675-1.
Carlip, S (2000). "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity". Phys. Lett. A 267 (2–3): 81–87. arXiv:gr-qc/9909087. Bibcode:2000PhLA..267...81C. doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(00)00101-8.
Stop throwing out fancy terms to muck up the works just because you once took a physics class and copied the glossary.
I taught the subject for years.
Talk abut picking nits! And just imagine Einstein's embarrassment - what a plagiarist he turned out to be!
Einstein himself admitted that he formulated the Special Theory of Relativity entirely from Maxwell's treatment of electromagnetic radiation. The only people surprised by my claim are those -- that would be you -- who don't know anything about physics.
To quote from his thought experiment, based entirely on Maxwell's theory of radiation:
"...a paradox upon which I had already hit at the age of sixteen: If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating. There seems to be no such thing, however, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell's equations. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how should the first observer know or be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion? One sees in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained."
[and oh, by the way, how fast is Einstein moving in his Gedankenexperiment? Hint: it's at a velocity that people who don't understand relativity -- that would be you -- think that relativity doesn't describe.]
but tachyon theory posits speeds already faster than c
"Tachyon Theory" is an amusing speculation with no more experimental verification than Dirac's reworking of Maxwell's Equations to include magnetic monopoles. Furthermore, if you've actually read anything about "tachyon theory," tachyons can't interact with anything in our universe. So as far as relativity is concerned -- or FTL -- you might as well be talking about blue fairies.
I really don't kow what to say to this, because it's obvious that you're using it as a demonstration of what you think passes for logic.
Here's the analogy in gory detail, since you're slow:
You:
If our civilization exists long enough, we will discover new things.
Therefore, we will eventually discover that there is FTL transport.
Were your putative "argument" correct, the following would always be valid syllogism:
If our civilization exists long enough, we will discover new things.
Therefore, we will eventually discover that every thing now known to be true is not true.
Of course it is gibberish, like all the rest of what you've posted here.