>>>>If you were to write a computer simulation of the universe based on special relativity, you would only be simulating the universe according to one observer.
>>>>
>>>>In order to reproduce the measurements of another observer a whole other simulation would have to be run in addition to original.
>>>>
>>>>That could be seen as a weakness of special relativity. In other words, an open problem for scientists is how to write a single computer simulation of a universe that accounts for the relativistic measurements of all observers.
>>>
>>>Mike,
>>>
>>>The current issue of Scientific American has an article about black holes that suggests that there may a preferred frame of reference and that special relativity is only an approximation of reality.
>>>
>>>Very interesting article.
>>
>>Yep. This one deserves some attention too:
>>
>>http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17159653-13762,00.html
>>
>>Reg, in my opinion, is the front runner for a "next big something" as opposed to string theory or loop quantum gravity.
>
>I posted this before, but just in case you didn't see it. This guy is also worth checking out.


This guy too:

http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html


Also worth noting is that in Quantum Electrodynamics, the quantum theory of light and matter, photons have amplitudes that allow them to move slower and faster than c.


It seems pretty clear that relativity is on its way out. As long as something else is there to pushing in. Reg's method is called process physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Physics

Over the past few years I've tried something nearly identical to that in VFP. Haven't had much luck though.