As far as I know, Einstein's equations permit travel at above light speed and below light speed; they only forbid going THROUGH the light speed value (accelerating or decelerating through it).
But c is an inevitable consequence of a quantized system. It is the speed at which one set of jumps falls through the gaps separating another set of jumps. The one speed where synchronisation fails.
When synchronisation between two fields of jumps (like two superposed musical chairs games) fails; one set becomes infinitely localised re: itself; i.e, infinitely massive. Since h refers to the jumps (Planck's constant), c refers to the maximumminimum speedbarrier, and g refers to the gravitational constant; c, g, and h are all aspects of the same phenomenon. They must be locked together; but as a three they could be other values.
QED is all about adding arrows called "probability amplitudes"; and appears to
be about finding a perspective among perspectives. The 'final mass' of 'action density' that QED delivers in analysis suggests that QED and gravity are the same concept. The attraction of probability amplitudes to each other
in a particular perspective may be what gravity is.
Relativity allows faster than light so is not violated by Aspect experiment. Even if it seemingly was; one need only look more closely at the very concepts "speed" and so on, to unravel the EPR puzzle, I'm guessing. Dr. Stafford reckons most of the puzzles and paradoxes dissapear with his system, but has not yet shown how.
Circularity in experiments: surely Staffords "water flowing downhill" experient is circular?
Emergent solutions: maybe the following explains it: How do you describe something accurately without it being circular? Like if you accurately describe a car, your description and the car will be almost the same.
With describing "water running downhill" via a carpenter's level: it's a circular description where the item described is the same as the description.
But a correct description of "water running downhill' would necessarily (if it is accurate) ALSO be the same thing as what it described!
What is the difference? The difference is that a correct description is expected to involve OTHER CATEGORIES and their relationships to the item described.
People consider that science isn't objective unless there are more than one scientists communicating. O.K., this leads to the idea that communication creates objectivity, creates OBJECTS even? Which tallies with Alexander's view that objects are mathematical relationships (and relationships of course mean communication).
Regards,
dolphin
