You may have heard it said that ‘nothing can travel faster than the speed of light'. The Large Hadron Collider operates at about 10 gigawatts. It accelerates protons to within one millionth of a percent of the speed of light. It has been said that for an object to reach the speed of light would be impossible for this would require ‘infinite energy'. The LHC is operating nowhere near infinite energy and it would seem that even a small kick should be enough to accelerate a proton past the speed of light.

We know that relativity theory incorporates a mathematical fiction called ‘space-time' (The Speed of Light) and that it is often said that if something ‘traveled faster than the speed of light it would cause a violation of causality because you would be traveling backwards in time.' This is a meaningless paradox, because time is not the fourth dimension of the universe. Time is just a by-product of motion in the universe. We perceive the fact that the universe is in motion and that quantum processes are occurring as being a ‘time-like' phenomenon. There is no ‘fourth dimension of time'. This idea is fictional.

It would appear that because relativity theory does not incorporate the concept of relative momentum, it generates another fiction, which is that it would require infinite energy to travel at light speed. Faster than light speeds would by definition be impossible.

It would seem correct to me that the Unified Field Theory predicts that the maximum velocity in the universe is not ‘the speed of light' for the speed of light is simply the speed of light and no more need be made of it than that. Rather the maximum velocity in the universe would appear to be limited by the maximum frequency of light, rather than its speed. The maximum frequency of light sets a limit upon the maximum limits of relative momentum (which is to say maximum field density).

A mammoth explosion of an object that could only have been an exploding black hole was detected in the late 1990s. If the field around some black hole collapses then we can imagine that what happens is much like the release of a compressed spring. More energy is equivalent to more space and since the energy density is greatest the deeper into the field of a black hole one would look, we would find more space more densely packed (if we adopted the point of view of a fictional objective reference frame, the space deep within the black hole would look tiny-one tiny square would be a cubic meter, while further out a larger square would be a cubic meter and so on, given that such and such a number of joules of energy is the equivalent of one square meter of space). The relativity of momentum also suggests that a black hole is not some ‘crushed singularity' but rather it is just a humongous mass with the ‘force of gravity' balanced by the increased quantum impedance generated within an increasingly powerful field.

Now if we have black holes blowing up (if we accept the evidence at face value) then it follows that there must exist a maximum frequency of light (therefore energy is not some infinite stretchable elastic). When a black hole exceeds the maximum allowable relative momentum (such that in the deepest part of the field the maximum frequency of light is exceeded, for the frequency and wavelength are dependant upon the strength of the field) the result would be a field collapse. The space created by the field would collapse and the result would be the release of an enormously crushed spring as atoms were suddenly required to occupy ‘more space' and the black hole would erupt and spew its contents throughout space while the field energy would also escape in the form of high intensity gamma rays.

What this suggests is that maximum velocity in the universe is determined not by ‘the speed of light' but rather by the maximum density of a momentum field (which is then determined by a maximum frequency of light). If an object had a momentum field of such a density that it traveled ‘faster than light' the result would not be ‘backwards time' but it is the slowing of time towards infinity that occurs (rather than energy required approaching infinity). The clock ticks slower and slower as it approaches theoretical zero (no time at all). Therefore the speed of light is the speed of light not because the speed of light is some kind of ‘speed limit' but rather because light possesses momentum (relative to the surrounding field) and light also exhibits a certain behavior pattern when interacting with the surrounding field, such that if its momentum increases, it generates increased ‘inertia', with the result being ‘higher frequency' as it interacts with the surrounding field (rather than increased velocity) and therefore it travels at the speed of light.

Therefore to calculate maximum velocity in the universe is to calculate maximum frequency since it is that maximum that determines the maximum potential at the very densest point of a momentum field. This could be deduced if we knew the maximum mass of a black hole, but this involves one in a chicken and egg type problem. If we knew the maximum mass of a black hole (the chicken) we could deduce the maximum frequency of light, but we don't know that, and so therefore if we knew the maximum frequency (the egg) we could deduce the maximum mass of a black hole.

We can see that momentum is relative to the field in which it occurs by observing the Pioneer anomaly. The Pioneer space craft are decelerating at a constant rate as they rise in the gravitational field of the sun. Whatever process is responsible for the acceleration of an object moving down in a gravitational field would also be responsible for the deceleration of an object moving up in gravitational field.

The Pioneer craft are decelerating at a constant rate (the product of the speed of light and Hubble's constant). This is just one more piece of evidence that momentum is relative to the position in the field in which it occurs. As field density decreases the result is relative deceleration. As the field density increases the result is relative acceleration. Now it is no coincidence that we would see this constant rate of deceleration in the two Pioneer spacecraft, for the speed of light must be increasing. If we consider that the supposed maximum velocity of the two space craft lies somewhere below the speed of light, then the space craft would require ‘more momentum' to maintain this velocity. This implies that the maximum potential velocity is increasing. The conservation of energy and momentum thus requires that the light be ‘red shifted' (Hubble's constant) for the energy is now being expressed in the form of increasing velocity as the field density decreases. It is easier for the light wave to move through a field with a lower density. It moves faster. It encounters less field impedance.

Let's assume that the two Pioneer Spacecraft were traveling at near light speeds. The two craft would have to increase momentum in order to maintain pace as they rocketed alongside that red shifting light wave. Now let us assume that the craft were to turn around and head in the opposite direction. The result could only be that the two craft would outrun the light wave, for momentum is relative, and the same momentum that caused the craft to keep up with the speed of light as the speed of light was increasing (as the field energy dilated and decreased) would result in an increase in relative momentum if the craft were traveling in the opposite direction. Time would continue to slow down as the two craft continued to exceed the speed of light, as time approached theoretical zero, such a point never being reached for the limits of relative momentum (maximum frequency of light) would be reached before zero time occurred.