Nice post, you made some very good points.
Thank you.
However, you talk about warped space-time as if I was talking about a curved surface. I do not visualize it as a curved surface. I view it as having properties that are different than normal space-time and that it's very possible we don't know what they all are or what all the effects they have on our reality.
Once again you are falling into the error I am talking about. If you will look at your statement, you seem to believe that space-time are actual real, physical things, as I infer from your statement that they "have properties that are different than normal space-time and that it's very possible we don't know what they all are or what all the effects they have on our reality".
Please understand that space-time are not real, physical things that can actually affect us; they are merely concepts which, if we treat rigorously, appear different for different observers, as relativity shows.
There is no actual defintion of time either, as Wikipedia is only too eager to show; Einstein himself was forced to resort to the definition that time can be measured by changes in information (e.g. information carried by light signals, which, being the fastest carriers of information, are then treated exclusively in the theory of relativity with regard to time). And "space" here is better replaced with the word "distance"; the "space" Einstein referred to was a simple allusion to an ordinary three-dimensional Cartesian system (which I assume you are familiar with), within which distances are measured.
Relativity deals only with measurements between these quantities; it tells us that, in order to allow normal physical laws to work, it is necessary to deal with changes induced in the measurement of these qualities, based on your frame of reference.
In layman terms, relativity simply says that you will measure things differently based on how fast you are going. You will measure, for example, time to be different if you are moving at a very fast speed, close to the speed of light; this is not because whatever quantity we choose to call time has changed, but merely because our method of measurement is forced to change (Why? Because otherwise we would be able to tell if we are actually in motion or at rest, rather than relatively in motion; something relativity is honour-bound to prevent).
In short, I simply want to dissuade you of the notion that space-time has properties. Whatever changes in any frame of reference (read: point of view) is simply because your measurement is forced to change to accomodate physical laws. As I said, space-time does not slow down, nor does it curve; it is only your clock that is forced to slow down, and your rigid rod forced to contract that gives you the impression that space-time is curved (I will explain this in more detail, if you wish; the actual thought experiment that leads us to conclude that accelerating bodies measure a different value of pi is a uniquely beautiful one). In actual reality, space-time are just abstract concepts, and hence are devoid of any properties except those implied by other, real concepts. It makes no sense, then, to talk of "curved" space-time as if they have properties different from "normal" space-time, whatever that might mean.
If as new research suggest that photons might have some infinitesimal amount of mass, then they can never quite reach the speed of light.
Which is precisely why no experiment ever has managed to detect any change in the speed of light. Always, it has been measured to be the same; the Michelson - Morley experiment rather dramatically proved this, to the dismay of the ether-loving theorists. And since its speed is always measured to be the same, it follows logically that photons can never have an infinitesimal amount of mass; ignoring the fact that this would damage the edifice of relativity forever (whose predictions have never once been shown to be in error, except perhaps in the extenuating circumstances of spiral galaxies), this constancy of speed implies that no photons have any mass; otherwise there would be experiments which show that the speed of light is smaller than its actual value.
Mind you, there are physicists who have proceeded under the assumption that the speed of light is
not always constant, and have succeeded in developing a theory (called deformed special relativity or doubly special relativity; DSR, in short, if you are interested) that has so far proved to be remarkably consistent, and even makes an experimental prediction, which the Auger experiment (do not ask me the details of the result; I have not bothered to check it) should confirm.
By definition the speed of light is a constant in space-time.
Actually, it is by the postulates of relativity, rather than its definition, which does include space-time at all.
I am also very interested in tachyons and their very interesting properties. Can they in fact exceed the speed of light as some have suggested or do they utilize some property of space-time yet to discovered by us?
Again, space and time are abstract concepts; it is wrong to assume that they have properties unknown to us when they are entirely abstract, and are certainly not physical objects. Particles do not utilise the properties of space-time, either, nor does anything else really do, actually; this is good since there are
no properties of space-time that actually exist.
Moreover, tachyons, by definition, are particles that travel faster than photons. They are also particles that have never been observed in nature, and any theory that includes tachyons is considered suspect in any physics colloqium; a theory actually suggesting that tachyons exist (unless offering, of course, some experimental method of verification) is unlikely to ever be published in any scientific journal.
Theory states, quite simply, that tachyons do not exist; otherwise relativity would be wrong, which has not, as I said before, ever been observed. Experiment demonstrates that they are not observed. The two form the core of science, and I think it is unlikely that tachyons exist.
Also, a theory is what it is, a tool to advance out understanding and like a good software program it usually gets better over time until it gets so good that it's not a theory anymore or it's proved wrong in light of a new and better theory. By definition a theory is not carved in stone even though they are treated that way sometime.
A theory which has proved its worth by offering predictions that are confirmed by experiment, not once but several times over, is almost always likely to be the right theory. While I accept that they are not carved in stone, I would also like to point out that any subsequent theory must build on the previous theory, rather than discard it completely; otherwise one must find new explanations and offer the same predictions as those explained by the previous theory - a tedious process and moreover often destined to be inconsistent. There is no comprehensive theory of science that has ever been overturned entirely in the light of a new development, and I would beg you not to attempt to do this with general relativity.
Further, any new theory which arises is often only necessary when the previous theory is unable to acocunt for a certain detail. While general relativity has been shown to be slightly flawed by recent observations in spiral galaxies, I would be inclined to accept alternative proposals for a theory which accounts for that discrepancy. Your theory, however, is only challenging an accepted theory of science on a region it has held dominion over for well over ninety years, with extremely successful predictions, and on an illogical basis. I apologise for such harsh words, but they must be said; it is wrong to begin with assumptions, and it is moreover wrong to build on them without first proving them clearly and precisely, and offering at least some evidence to show that they are, indeed, far more credible than previous facts.
Thats very easy, as light enters the very highly warped space-time on the black hole side of the event horizon it bends into a complete circle and will never be seen again. That is very different than saying that even light cannot escape from a black hole because of super strong gravity.
Yes, but the predictions are the same, are they not? How can we then tell which is right and which isn't?