Cloudscape

Perhaps matter cannot go faster than light because all matter is light.
E=mc^2, meaning that mass is in fact condensed energy; energy in its purest form is light. Perhaps, then, matter in fact consists of photons which have somehow become condensed into more complex structures.

Light moves at a constant speed in vacuum but can slow down in other media because it bounces back and forth from atom to atom. Scientists have even managed to freeze light altogether: firing it through hot rubidium atoms, they locked it in place by trapping it in between two control beams, which interacted with the rubidium atoms to create layers which reflected the photons back and forth. Clearly, it is possible for light to be still. Perhaps, matter is light that constantly rebounds in some kind of subatomic system, a solidified version of photon gas.

In photons, all energy is kinetic, equal to mc^2, while they have no mass-energy. If matter is condensed light, then its mass is actually condensed kinetic energy. In the form of light, all mass-energy is converted into kinetic energy; it is obvious then, that no matter can go faster than light, as for that to happen, more than 100% of its energy would have to be kinetic, meaning that its every photon would have to move in a line. In fact, because of this, matter that would move at the speed of light would necessarily disintegrate.
Since photons have maximum speed, then if all matter consists of photons, one can't really increase its speed; rather, when increasing the net speed of a mass, one employs part of the intrinsic speed of its photons, which is normally almost fully neutralized. This could be compared to the wind, which is caused by a difference in temperature: in this way, the speed of the individual atoms also causes the speed of the air itself, even though the speed of the atoms actually remains unchanged.

If this is true, one could say that the speed of light is absolute for similar reasons that the speed of sound is. Air atoms always move with about the same speed; but usually they move in a random way, so that they do not move on larger scale. When sound waves are produced, however, they collectively move at the speed of sound. This would be very similar to how photons would behave. According to the Bohm Interpretation, photons merely behave like a wave because they move collectively according in a wave function, much like air atoms; in fact, photon waves might actually be no more than an analogy to sound waves.

Remember that air atoms move at a speed of 330 meters per second even though it is more or less still on larger levels, aside from a much slower wind, and that the same counts for the atoms in any matter: all atoms move at their own speed of sound, that is to say, the speed at which sound travels through them. For iron, this is 5 kilometers per second, far higher than in air, and yet it manages to remain solid because of the forces that bind the atoms together, producing energies stronger than those of the atoms' movements. In diamond, this is even as high as 12 kilometers per second, though it is the hardest natural material. Perhaps there is a force that at some level could glue even photons together, despite their speed of 300.000 kilometers per second.

If air atoms were in a closed system, then over time all air atoms would have exactly the same speed, since their kinetic energy would have distributed over the entire system. Without interaction with other systems to cause differences in energy levels, their energy would become evenly spread in accordance to the law of entropy. This is what would have happened for the photons the universe would comprise: they would have exchanged their energy just as air atoms would, but over a period of thirteen billion years, until their speed would become almost perfectly constant. Because everything in the universe is made of the same photons, there was no outward influence to cause gradients in their kinetic energy.

However, like the speed of sound, the speed of light might only be absolute on a small scale. Even though air atoms themselves move at a speed of 300 meters per second, the air itself can move far faster than this speed, for instance, if the air is moved by an airplane, and perhaps photons might themselves move at a speed faster than 300.000 kilometers per second if moved by something larger — such as, for instance, the Big Bang.

The consensus among scientists is that the explanation for the faster-than-light expansion of the universe is that it is not the universe itself, but space which expands. Perhaps it is in fact the universe which expands, because the universe, like the airplane, is so large that the speed of light no longer applies.

Moreover, the Big Bang took place before the speed of light was established, since this happened only later, as the photons exchanged their energy until all had the same speed, at least, on a small level.

It may also be possible that all energy has the same constituents as photons are themselves composed of, which would likewise always have the speed of light. What those may be, however, is highly speculative, as they would be beyond the level even of elementary particles. If all elementary particles have the same basic constituents, however, this would explain how elementary particles can bring others into being. Photons themselves can be converted into any kinds of other particles, for instance. Usually, when two particles interact (read collide) with one another with enough energy, their kinetic energy is converted into other particles. However, if two photons interact with one another with enough energy, they are entirely converted into other particles. This is basically the time reversal transformation of the combination of matter and antimatter particles, which yields photons.

When photons are converted into matter, their energy would be transferred into these particles. Thus, it is obvious that the energy in the photons is of the same form of that of the particles, and therefore, has the same particles at some level. This would also mean that all energy is kinetic, since the energy of photons themselves is also entirely kinetic. That all forms of energy can be converted into one another seems to indicate that all energy is the same, or is comprised of the same. Otherwise, they could interact, but no more than this; they could not be turned into one another.

If matter consists of photons, speed cannot be added to the photons: they can only be brought to move more in the same direction, so that they no longer brake one another as much. The more the matter is sped up, the more the photons move in the same direction. This is much like the wind causes air atoms to move in the same direction, or a supersonic airplane does so: the air atoms are pushed in one direction against one another until they move in that direction, and so are the photons when matter is converted into energy.

At relativistic speeds, however, the matter is moved at such speed that its mechanisms break down; the matter starts to return more to its original state, in the form of a ray of light.

As the movement of the object as a whole increases, the movement of the particles relative to one another decreases, as the latter movement happens in another direction other than that of the movement of the object itself. The kinetic energy of the particles within the object becomes converted into the kinetic energy of the object as a whole.

As the photons are pushed against the light barrier, all particles approach the same speed, that is, the speed of light, and the closer they approach it, the more they slow down. The faster the particles are pushed against this barrier, the more they are slowed down. Particles that travel in the direction opposite to the direction of travel are least changed.

As the particles collide, the collisions in the direction of travel are decreased in force, while the collisions in the direction opposite the direction of travel are increased in force. This causes a net "force" in the direction opposite that of travel, although this force is arguably fictitious. It is another matter with width, since it is only axially, that is, in the direction of travel, that the particles approach the speed of light. Laterally, only the speeds of the particles are changed, while the ratios of speeds remains the same.

The particles of a still body can move freely in all directions, but in a relativistic body, they can barely but move in only one direction, since movement in any other direction would slow the body down, and the only way a body can have such speed is by having all its particles move almost straight in the same direction. The movement of the particles in the object is turned into the movement of the object itself. Because of this, the particles slow down relative to one another, so that their interactions also slow down, and therefore so does their entire physics and chemistry. It is because of this that time dilates as speed increases, since time, as well as speed, is itself but movement, and the former needs to be converted entirely into the latter in order for the speed of light to be achieved.

Time is the result of movement, but the movement that causes time almost ceases at speeds near that of light. In fact, time, as well as space, are both themselves but movement, for if nothing moved, everything would stay exactly where and when it was, so that space and time would become irrelevant: the only time would be now and the only space here, and so they would always stay. It is in this that time and space are one and the same.

Mainstream scientists have another way of explaining time dilation, yet I have come to the same conclusion through other premises, though using the same postulate that the speed of light is absolute. The speed of light is not absolute relative to any frame of reference, but it is nonetheless an absolute property. The speed of light is immanent in all energy, and therefore, the laws of physics are still invariable in any frame of reference and the Theory of Relativity is actually preserved, although reinterpreted. As the speed of light remains invariant, the other normally invariant properties like time and space also become variant at relativistic speeds.

If we base the "velocity" of an object not on how fast it goes relative to other objects but rather base it on its kinetic energy, then velocity is an absolute property rather than one that is relative. Velocity should be measured as how fast it goes relative to how fast it can go (that is, relative to the speed of light). An object can only achieve a certain velocity until all its energy has turned into kinetic energy. The absolute velocity of a non-relativistic object equals the square-root of two times its kinetic energy divided by its mass. Velocity is a property of the object itself, but one that is very hard to measure.

There should be only one law, and it is that of Wiccan lore: an it harm none, doth what thou wilt. All else is tyranny.
The only law should be not to impose one's will upon someone else; not the will to harm another, and neither to change them in any other way, should be allowed. Only those that seek to control others should be controlled in this urge. Whether that control is in the form of murder, rape, theft or law does not matter; it is a violation of free will, and this alone is what makes it immoral. The murdered do not choose to be murdered; the raped do not choose to be raped; the robbed do not choose to be robbed; the enslaved do not choose for their oppressed. If murder were chosen, it would be euthanasia; if rape were chosen it would be love-making; if theft were chosen it would be a gift; if law were chosen it would be convention; and if this were the case, then there would be nothing wrong at all with any of these things.

Compulsion itself it the only crime, and so the law in itself is criminal.

No-one has the right to control us in any way. Politicians may direct those that wish to be directed, those that would seek their guidance. They may use only those resources that we are willing to endow on them, if people feel that they knows better what to do with them; but they cannot take our resources to increase their control. Others may wish to use their money in their own way or define in which way their money is to be used by politicians, having it invested in the infrastructure in their own home city or district rather than in weapon industry or other idiocy. They may control only other people's control of other people in itself, which is the only real crime.
Furthermore, politicians may at most make us aware of risks; but they may not forbid us to take those risks, for our very lives are made through naught but risks. If we wish to do something that may or will harm ourselves, then we may do so. It is senseless to punish this; if harm is done to ourselves, then we are already punished in as far as we should be. If we have done no harm to ourselves, then only the punishment would have done harm to us, and so the punishment should be punished.
There is nothing more dangerous than to forbid to endanger ourselves; for we need danger to live, as any trial is dangerous; the newer what we try is, the more dangerous it is; but it is through trial that civilization was built. All experiments are dangerous, yet without experiments, neither would society exist, nor would we ourselves ever have taken our first steps as toddlers.
To forbid what is dangerous to ourselves is a slippery slope; two thousand years ago we started by forbidding suicide, though no-one knows what lies beyond death; today, we often forbid things such walking on ice. It won't end there; anything that has some danger involved could potentially become forbidden. And of course anything has some danger involved, no matter how small. Were does one place the line where something becomes dangerous enough to become forbidden?
Yet the most risky endeavors are often the most rewarding, on a political as well as individual level. On a national scale, examples are manned space flights or economical interventions; on an individual scale, there are things such as moving or marriage.
"Mountain climbing, glacier trevassing, skydiving, deep scuba diving, and high-speed motorcycle riding" are all highly dangerous activities, and according to Geo Stone's "Suicide and Attempted Suicide," the average climb of the Mount Everest is actually as dangerous as the average suicide attempt. Does this mean that such activities should be forbidden? People who face dangerous activities are almost always aware of the dangers; if they have to face the consequences, that is their concern.
In fact, there are many people who either do not care about the consequences (even death) or actually hope that they will follow. Some borderline people openly state that they would not have a problem with drug addiction or other possible consequences of their behavior; for some people, after all, drama remains of value in life. Who are we to deny it? For those that choose for it, any experience can be valuable. Whether what they do to themselves will be painful to them or no, if they seek pain then that is their choice, and it as well might be enriching. We may but warn others of dangers, but never forbid them. It is up to them if they think the advantages of a course of action are worth the disadvantages for themselves.
We may help someone find their own way, but we may not choose which way they are to take. We cannot know what is better for someone else without knowing them as they know themselves, because what it better for someone is subjective. Whatever someone feels is better for them, they're right. Everyone's experience of the world is different, and we cannot impose our own experience upon others.
Perhaps it is time that we dispense every law and leave only that of respect. A new time will come in which either authoritarianism becomes total, or else dissolves altogether; but it cannot remain in existence without . It cannot keep us caged forever, for over the years, more and more the younger generations are crying out for freedom.

Some interpretations in physics dispense with causality; in that these interpretations are no longer scientific, since science is nothing but the investigation of causality, of why things are as they are. Physics without causality is no longer science, but mysticism. Believing something to be as it is without needing any explanation in physics is as unscientific as believing this in religion. Scientists who say that the occurrence of a physical event needs no cause are no better than creationists who say that the existence of God needs no cause, and surely polytheists believed the same in the past about their gods; but we only give up finding the cause of something and say that it "just is" when we are confused about it. Some things about modern physics are very confusing, but that does not give us an excuse to descend into despair to explain them.

Beyond death there are but three possibilities: either there is nothingness, or there is infinity, or there is something between the two as there is now. The first would mean to become undone; the second would mean to become one with all of existence; the third would mean to be reborn.
In the latter case, whether we are reborn in heaven or in hell or in earth, we would remain much like we are now, that is, limited. Thus we would be reborn over and over again forever, since nothing that is finite can remain the same as it is. If this cycle of reincarnations would last for an infinitely long time, it would also randomly involve an infinite amount of situations and eventually repeat them infinitely many times; if not, then it must end either in nothingness or in infinity, as it could not remain stable otherwise.
This is actually quite a horrifying possibility, since it would mean that we would end up in every possible situation we could imagine, from the most blissful to the most painful, be it in reality or in imagination. Be it through our environment or hallucinations, either how, we would go through every possible experience that could be conceived of. More frightening still, because of this we would also end up being every possible person, from the most honorable to the most cruel. In some future life we might be a murderer, or a rapist or a tyrant. Worst of all, we could do nothing about the fact that everything that would ever happen would happen again, and we could never do anything to avoid it.
As to what came before birth, likewise, there are again the same three possibilities. But here the possibility of infinity and of nothingness become harder to defend; after all, both nothingness and infinity are stable. There is nothing that defines them, and therefore no state into which they could evolve; after all, why should it evolve into one state and not another, if the starting points are identical? If we came from nothing, or came from infinity, then we would have remained either nothing or infinite.
Nothing can simply pass from nonexistence into existence; for nonexistence has no configuration whatsoever, and so cannot change into another specific configuration such as that of a human body. This would be a complete paradox: if we came from nothing at all, then there would be nothing that would determine what we would become. There would be no reason why we should be ourselves rather than someone else, and therefore who we are would be acausal. There cannot have been a beginning, neither of the universe nor of our lives within them, because something would have caused that beginning, as well; otherwise, it would just be without any reason at all.
Seen purely from our own viewpoints, how could our own consciousness one moment have not existed and then suddenly have been bound to a specified body? Since my consciousness was bound to a particular body means that it must have been defined in a particular way, but how is this possible if it had not existed before?
If we suppose that everything has a cause, then this is completely impossible; thus, our own consciousness must always have existed. This may or may not mean that if this is so, it will also always exist; after all, if our consciousness had existed for an infinitely long time, then from a purely statistical viewpoint it would appear impossible to stop existing. This is not something I say because I want to believe this, for I believe the possibility of eternal repetition is far more terrifying than that of eternal nothingness. The possibility of infinity is the only that offers some comfort, as infinity could only remain stable through infinite love.
That our consciousness never had a sudden beginning is not as far-fetched as it seems: after all, how can we place a line between consciousness and unconsciousness? Are not some of our own perceptions even now only partly conscious, that is, subconscious, and some to so little extent that we never realize they are there at all?
At what point does a fetus become conscious in the womb? Or did we already have some more fundamental consciousness still before that? Can we pinpoint an exact moment at which it becomes conscious, before which there was no consciousness at all and after which all of a sudden there was consciousness? And if so, where did the consciousness suddenly come from? Out of the blue, from nowhere at all? Or does consciousness arise gradually?
Perhaps the only solution to this question is that our consciousness has always existed; in that case, there are but two possibilities: the first is that what we are now is just another of an infinite series of reincarnations, which over time will go through every possible situation and eventually repeat themselves.
The second possibility is that our consciousness has grown for an infinitely long time. Before we were born, before our consciousness was bound to the complex system of our brain, perhaps our consciousness was bound to simpler systems. Perhaps if one would go back in time and if somehow one could observe what one's consciousness had once been, one would find that it would always halve, and halve again and over and over forever as one would go further in time; perhaps once, before we were conscious of our own bodies, we were conscious on lower levels. However, since every level of consciousness could be halved, our consciousness would have been lower and lower in the past but never have reached zero; however, it would have approached zero as a limit. That is, it would have been infinitesimal in the past; as every level of consciousness would further be halved without quite reaching zero, it could have existed for an infinitely long time. If this is true, we don't need to deal with the inexplicability of consciousness that arose from nothing to become something.
Perhaps consciousness is something that grows from an infinitesimal point to bit by bit spread over the entire infinity of the universe. Put another way, perhaps that of which we are conscious grows until it becomes the entire universe.
To live is a transitive. We are always aware of something. Right now, we are aware of our own bodies and their surroundings, perhaps, earlier, we were conscious of a single atom, and before that of a single particle and so on ad infinitum. Maybe we should not think of consciousness as something that arises from matter, but rather something that merely relies on it: we are aware of matter, and as such we could not be aware without matter as there would be nothing to be aware of; but that does not mean per se that matter causes consciousness.
If our consciousness has grown from a infinitely close to nothing over an infinitely long time, it is reasonable to assume that it will continue to grow towards infinity, though possibly never fully reaching it. In fact, relative to future, infinite levels of consciousness, our current level of consciousness would then still be infinitesimal. This is merely a question of frame of reference.
I would like to emphasize that this is merely a hypothesis, and not my personal belief. Consciousness is probably by far the most mysterious thing in the universe, and since it cannot be observed, we can only hope to understand it through pure logic. But logic, too, can be flawed. I still believe each of the three scenario's (infinity, finity, or nothing) to be possible and favor none of these; but my hopes are that we will, sooner or later, reach infinity. If we do, however, the question still remains if we will do so in a finite amount of time, or if we can only approach it over an infinitely long time.

We are what makes the difference between a cosmos that could just as well not have existed at all, and a universe that is full of wonders. It is we who bring the entire universe to life. In the blink of an eye we can create anything at all before our eyes. In the clear night, all the stars obey us, coming at our bidding into the sky when we look up, stars that without us would have no light. Without us flowers would have no color, the winds would have no sound, the rain would have no touch, the air would have no smell, and spices would have no taste. All the marvels in the world we have created ourselves, for otherwise no-one would otherwise experience them.
For no matter how vast, the greatest stars or galaxies do not know of their own vastness; in us alone are they vast. It is we, then, that are the crown of evolution. We that are alive are greater than anything in the universe. For without us there would be naught. We, living beings, are the creators; for beyond us there is naught but that which could become.

In an infinite universe there will always be infinite suffering, and nothing we ever do can ever change that. For an infinite universe as a whole can never be changed, for that would otherwise have been done by others before us. While its parts may be changed, on the whole it always remains as it has always been.
The only thing that matters to us, then, is the beauty of our own experiences.

In anger, more Yin;
In sadness, more Yang.

In excess, more Yin;
In emptiness, more Yang.

Beauty is no more and no less than the degree of complexity of patterns; any patterns, whatever they may be. In everything there are patterns; in fact, everything consists of patterns. "Patterns" does not have to mean symmetry, as patterns often occur in lack of symmetry, ie asymmetry. Whether or not those patterns appeal to us is merely a matter of perception.
However, complexity is not always obvious and may occur in subtle ways, as some things, such as a color, may appear simple and yet actually trigger complex impressions or emotions. Simplicity in itself may be complex.
There is beauty in all things; but some things are more beautiful than others because there are more things to be perceived within them. In other words, though all existence is beautiful, there is more existence in some things than in others. Things which can be divided into more parts are more complex, and so more beautiful.
There is beauty in all things; but some things are more beautiful than others because there are more things to be perceived within them. In other words, though all existence is beautiful, there is more existence in some things than in others. Things which can be divided into more parts are more complex, and so more beautiful.
For instance, from a purely graphical point of view, a detailed drawing is more beautiful than an rough sketch because more shades of grey are to be distinguished in it. On the other hand, from an expressive point of view a rough sketch may be just as beautiful or more so, depending rather on the shades of emotion that are to be distinguished in them.
If all existence is beautiful, and we life to exist, then we life for beauty. The more we find beauty in our lives, then, the more we will exist. Thus, choose whatever path that feels most beautiful.

It makes no sense to ask what meaning existence has; for whatever it would be for would itself be part of existence. The meaning of existence is to exist. What one sees as meaningful is but subjective; anything is meaningful if one sees it as such. Whatever beliefs one has about what is meaningful, then, are not philosophical but rather emotional. Love, beauty, happiness — all these things are meaningless if one sees it as such; but why should one, if by doing so one will never find meaning? Things have no value only if one does not recognize their value. It is irrelevant just what the meaning of life is as it may have infinitely many meanings; life itself, in every moment, is its own meaning.
If any, the question here is not what the meaning of life is, but rather what its destination is.

Since Special Relativity has become a paradigm of modern physics, any phenomenon of faster-than-light communication has either been ignored or dismissed by physicists. Over the years there have been many experiments in which true superluminal velocities have been observed. Unable to dispute their results, mainstream scientists often represented them in such way that their significance was masked, using cyclical arguments or irrelevant metaphors. Scientists seem to fear that if proven possible, FTL travel would mark the end of Special Relativity.
There is no reason, however, why we should give up Special Relativity if we find that superluminal velocities exist; but perhaps we should nuance it somewhat. Nothing in the universe may be absolute. Natural laws tend to have exceptions. Natural laws are causes of phenomena, but they themselves are phenomena, and so we might assume that they as well have causes. Those causes might be changeable, like anything else in nature appears to be.
We live in a universe that appears to be "fine-tuned" to the possibility of life. For example, should the fine-structure constant (a dimensionless constant equal to 7,29 · 10^-3) be just 4% different, then stellar fusion could not produce carbon, and so life would be impossible. (There is, of course, a possibility of life that need other or less atoms, but the question is what life could do with just two non-inert atoms, hydrogen and lithium!)
This suggests two things.
The first is that there are, or have been, many other universes with other parameters. After all, if there were only one universe (or one region in the universe with distinct physical constants), it would be too much of a coincidence that it is inhabitable. That we live in a universe which happens to be fine-tuned to life because there could be no other universe to live in in the first place.
The second is that physical laws, or at least physical constants (which include the speed of light) are changeable (at least in very extreme circumstances), since they must have formed at some point in time to become what they are now. For our universe, this supposedly happened in the early stages of its birth (although there may be other universes where the laws of nature are still changing constantly). Some of the circumstances of the primeval universe are actually being simulated in particle accelerators, albeit over extremely small spaces. Who knows? Perhaps, one day, we'll get so far as to bend the laws of nature in our own particle accelerators.
In fact, such phenomena have already been observed.
Natural nuclear fission reactors are subterranean deposits of uranium which may undergo spontaneous nuclear reactions; one of the oldest of these nuclear fission reactors lies in Gabon, which has been discontinuously active for about 2 billion years. By analyzing the nuclear decay in these deposits, researchers have discovered that the fine-structure constant, which determines nuclear reaction cycles, has slightly changed over that time.

Phenomena Superluminal Phenomena

1) Inflation Period:
Perhaps the most dramatic instance of superluminal velocity in the history of the universe was at its very beginning: in the "inflation period," a period which lasted for a tiny fraction of the first second after the Big Bang, all the matter in the entire universe exploded at a speed far higher than the speed of light. In 10–33 seconds, the universe increased 1026 times in size. The diameter it had achieved at the end of this period was no more than 10 centimeters, but all this had happened in such a short time that this was by far the most extreme explosion ever. The velocity it involved was 1032 meters per second, or 3 · 1023 times the speed of light.
Many physicists would, as usual, dismiss this phenomenon by pointing out that space and time at this point were distorted by gravity. However, this argument confuses two unrelated frames of reference; from our frame of reference, the speed was faster-than-light. If this would happen again before our eyes and we could somehow observe it, then, supposing that it wouldn't destroy the entire world, we would observe a speed that is undeniably superluminal.

2) Gain-assisted superluminality:
Researchers have achieved faster-than-light communication by sending light pulses through a supercooled gas of exotic cesium atoms. The light pulse travelled so fast that it had actually exited the gas chamber before it had finished entering.
They claim that this leaves Special Relativity intact; the light pulse did not actually travel faster than light, they state, because the light pulse on the other side of the gas chamber was actually a reconstruction of the entering pulse, so that is not actually the same pulse. This interpretation does a poor job hiding the fact that either how, information was nonetheless passed through to the other side of the gas chamber faster than light. This contradicts Special Relativity, which says that under no circumstances information could travel faster than light; it may be that Wang and his colleagues were afraid to openly contradict Special Relativity, for fear of criticism or disregard of their research.

3) EPR paradox:
Observing either of a pair of entangled particles will instantly affect the other particle, no matter how far it is — a fact which has been experimentally verified. No matter how one interprets this, the information that either particle has been observed travels to the other particle instantly, or at least (and perhaps more likely) at a speed faster than we have as yet been able to measure.
It is claimed that this does not allow faster-than-light communication, yet regardless it has been proposed to use this phenomenon in quantum cryptography: by using entangled particles to transmit information, eavesdropping would be instantly detected since it would affect the other particle of the pair. In other words, the information of an instance of eavesdropping would instantly travel to the other particle; this is certainly communication.
The event of the observation of either of the particles has an immediate effect on the other. Einstein mockingly called this "Spokhafte Fernwirkung," and in the formulation of the EPR paradox claimed that this meant that quantum mechanics is incomplete. However, since this "spooky action at a distance" has been confirmed as factual, it would appear that it is rather Special Relativity which is incomplete.

4) Speed of gravity:
Although Einstein dismissed "spooky action at a distance" as impossible, the mainstream interpretation of General Relativity today itself uses "spooky action at a distance" to avoid faster-than-light speed. Tom van Flandern has calculated, based on observation of planets and binary quasars, that the speed of gravity must propagate at no less than 20 billion times the speed of light to accord with their angular momentum.
To avoid this, mainstream physicists interpret gravity as the curvature of space-time rather than an actual force of nature, like electromagnetism. While representing gravity in this way may render the nature of gravity more obscure, however, it does nothing to change the fact that, be it through space-time curvature or through an actual force, gravity propagates at a certain speed. If gravity is represented as space-time curvature, the fact remains, obviously, that mass has an effect on space-time curvature; this effect cannot be random, and therefore requires a signal from the mass that causes it: this signal must be faster than light.
The effect of mass on gravity is such that it can affect the other side of the observable universe in just two seconds. In other words, information is passed at faster-than-light speed, the information of gravity; in the space-time curvature representation, this is the information space-time needs to know just in what way it should curve in accordance to the mass that causes it to do so.
The only way to deny that this is a faster-than-light effect is by detaching the effect from its cause, in which cause one has to give up the entire idea of gravity. In gravity, cause and effect are related at a speed that is faster-than-light, and only through sophistry can one deny this, unless observations are somehow wrong.

5) Virtual particles
Similarly to gravity, electromagnetism appears to propagate at faster-than-light speed through virtual photons. The nature of virtual particles is still unknown, but they are thought by mainstream physicists to be a manifestation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Again, most physicists dismiss the faster-than-light nature of virtual particles because they are virtual; that is, they exist only for a very short time. Outside of their interaction, they do not exist. However, this is irrelevant, as their interaction itself is superluminal; therefore, their interaction might also be used to allow superluminal communication.

6) Opposite or closing speeds:
Special Relativity states that regardless of the frame of reference, nothing can go faster than light. Actually, one doesn't need to think far at all to see that this is plainly impossible: when two photons move on a straight line towards or away from each other, than from our frame of reference they do so twice as fast as the "speed of light." When you tell this to a mainstream physicist, he will say that from the frame of reference of either of the photons themselves, the photons will not move faster than light, thereby changing your question so as to best suit an answer which accords to Special Relativity; the frame of reference of the photons is not very relevant, however. Since all motion is relative and all things in the universe are in motion, it is easy to travel towards something at faster-than-light speed from the frame of reference of the Earth. That is to say, when you have reached your destination which was 200 light years far, it might be that less than 200 light years have passed in the universe.
This is probably the least relevant of all faster-than-light phenomena, since it does little to bring us closer to faster-than-light travel or communication, but it is a faster-than-light phenomenon nonetheless. One can hardly move a star towards a spaceship: while it may be possible to move a star by means of a stellar engine (a type-2 Dyson sphere), it would not be very worthwhile to use this simply to accelerate space traffic.
The least that this means is that we should reformulate the Special Relativity: "Nothing can travel faster towards or away from an object than light would travel towards or away from it." At least, that is how it tends to be.

7) Current cosmic inflation:
The observable universe is 93 billion light years or 28 billion parsecs across in diameter. Every second, the universe expands by 2 trillion kilometers in diameter every second, or 20 million times the speed of light. The matter at one end of the universe moves away from the matter at the other end with the same speed.
Mainstream physicists argue to this that it is not the matter in the universe which is expanding, but rather its space. But be it through the three dimensions we know or through some esoteric "fourth dimension," this expansion of space is in itself a kind of movement, albeit the movement of space. This is, again, nothing but another interpretation of the same thing; but an interpretation which is so abstruse that is hard to find arguments against it. Again, however, matter is moved faster than the speed of light; that is to say, the distance between them grows at a speed faster than light could cover it.
Physicists keep finding new ways of formulating "movement" to mask faster-than-light phenomena. All right, so let's call "movement" "the expansion of space between two objects." In that case, in accordance with this new formulation let me likewise reformulate my question! Is it possible to expand or shrink the space between two objects so that the objects move towards or away from each other faster than light would?
That the observable universe is able to increase the space between its ends faster than light does seem to give us hope that we might ourselves find ways to expand the space between masses faster than light could pass the same space.
Actually, there are plenty of physicists, including Feynman, Dirac, and, earlier mentioned, Tom van Flandern, who did not give credence to the theory that gravity is caused by the curvature of space-time, believing it to be a force of nature just like any other. Either how, it is quite clear that, in whatever way, the space between two objects can expand faster than the speed of light, and it is happening every second. How one interprets this changes little about the fact.

7) Quantum tunneling:
Perhaps the most significant FTL experiment aside from Wang's gain-assisted superluminality was conducted in Köln. Unlike Wang, Mintz was less timid about the results of his experiments, but like Wang's, Mintz' research has not gotten as much credit as it deserved.
Critics found it more difficult to find arguments against Mintz' research, mostly because the experiment was so simple that it was hard to make it seem complicated: the setup of the experiment consisted of an amplifier, a 20 centimeter long tube, and Mozart's 40th symphony in the form of microwaves.
This experiment used quantum tunneling, which is manifested in the earlier mentioned virtual particles, in this case virtual photons. This proves that, despite claims of the opposite, virtual photons can effectively be used as a means of faster-than-light communication.
Quantum tunnelling is a phenomenon in which a particle can spontaneously pass a finite potential barrier in the form of a virtual photon, which is then reconverted into a standard particle. Mintz wave transducer made use of the Hartman effect, the effect that, if a barrier is thick enough, the tunneling time (the time it takes for a particle to get past the barrier through quantum tunneling) becomes independent of the thickness of the barrier and inclines towards a constant value.
The tube, which was called a wave transducer. The wave transducer, which was about 11 centimeters wide, was far too small for microwaves, which start at a wavelength of 30 centimeters, so that normally, they would net be able to get through. Virtual photons, however, could get past the wave transducer through quantum tunneling. On the other side, the tunneled photons went through an amplifier, which then played Mozart; not at very high quality, but enough to be recognizable as Mozart's 40th symphony. In this way, the symphony had been transmitted at 4,7 times the speed of light.

It is often argued that while the group velocity (the speed of the whole of the wave, which may change in dimensions) may exceed the speed of light, the front velocity (the speed of the front of the wave) always remains the same. There are, indeed, phenomena in which some kinds of wave velocities (be it phase velocity, group velocity, energy velocity or signal velocity) are superluminal yet the front velocity remains unchanged, such as negative refractions and atomic coherence effects, but when the wave is observed to have arrived at its destination before light in vacuum would normally have done so, surely this argument is no longer satisfactory. If the wave as a whole has reached at superluminal speed, then obviously so has its front, in violation with Special Relativity.

There have been so many observed FTL phenomena, and many more will follow in future, that we can no longer ignore them. Sooner or later, modern physics will be forced to review its principles, at least insofar as to nuance them. Again, natural laws tend to have exceptions.