Proof that the speed of light is a universal maximum, is impossible

You arguing that the cosine law stops working when the angles are less than 1 degrees. That is nonsense. We are capable of measuring angles to within several millionths. The accuracy allows us to then use simple trigonometry to calculate the distance within several thousand miles.


Until you can show us that triangulation doesn't work by giving us a specific example that can be tested, I will trust that the thousand years of it's use trumps your specious claim.

Bull ****. Verification is done all the time without getting out a real long tape. Do you really think we took a tape to measure the distance to the moon? Yet we were able to send several space craft there based on our measurements that you consider to not be verified.

Well if you are attempting to lessen the resistance of the structure of space, shouldn't you at least attempt to describe the structure?

Einstein already provided the proof that the structure of space exist in his formulas.
Isn't time that someone tries to describe the structure?
Wouldn't that narrow down what could move through it at what speed?

But Einstein's formulas are missing 95 percent of the universes mass, at least if the formulas are correct. Anyway why would someone need proof, that space is there?

Pete, here is your answer about the structure of space. Note that less than 3 percent of all highly trained physicist can truly comprehend the following, and you have no degrees in physics, so understanding for you may well be impossible.

The Structure of Space According to the General Theory of Relativity

ACCORDING to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter. Thus we can draw conclusions about the geometrical structure of the universe only if we base our considerations on the state of the matter as being something that is known. We know from experience that, for a suitably chosen co-ordinate system, the velocities of the stars are small as compared with the velocity of transmission of light. We can thus as a rough approximation arrive at a conclusion as to the nature of the universe as a whole, if we treat the matter as being at rest. 1
We already know from our previous discussion that the behaviour of measuring-rods and clocks is influenced by gravitational fields, i.e. by the distribution of matter. This in itself is sufficient to exclude the possibility of the exact validity of Euclidean geometry in our universe. But it is conceivable that our universe differs only slightly from a Euclidean one, and this notion seems all the more probable, since calculations show that the metrics of surrounding space is influenced only to an exceedingly small extent by masses even of the magnitude of our sun. We might imagine that, as regards geometry, our universe behaves analogously to a surface which is irregularly curved in its individual parts, but which nowhere departs appreciably from a plane: something like the rippled surface of a lake. Such a universe might fittingly be called a quasi-Euclidean universe. As regards its space it would be infinite. But calculation shows that in a quasi-Euclidean universe the average density of matter would necessarily be nil. Thus such a universe could not be inhabited by matter everywhere; it would present to us that unsatisfactory picture which we portrayed in Section XXX. 2
If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1 between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.

you just cut and paste crap and expect people to think about it out of context. At least include the equations.

Nest time try to include a attribution or your junk is just like Darwin's first edition. (except he understood what he was writing)

Pete finds it interesting, and he does not need you to tell him what to do.

Actually there's more than one point of view.
Global structure covers thegeometry and the topology of the whole universe—both the observable universe and beyond. While the local geometry does not determine the global geometry completely, it does limit the possibilities, particularly a geometry of a constant curvature. For this discussion, the universe is taken to be a geodesic manifold, free of topological defects; relaxing either of these complicates the analysis considerably.

A global geometry is a local geometry plus a topology. It follows that a topology alone does not give a global geometry: for instance, Euclidean 3-space and hyperbolic 3-space have the same topology but different global geometries.

Investigations within the study of global structure of include

Whether the universe is infinite orfinite in extentThe scale or size of the entire universe (if it is finite)Whether the geometry is flat, positively curved, or negatively curvedWhether the topology is simply connected like a sphere or multiply connected like a torusInfinite or finite

One of the presently unanswered questions about the universe is whether it is infinite or finite in extent. Mathematically, the question of whether the universe is infinite or finite is referred to as boundedness. An infinite universe (unbounded metric space) means that there are points arbitrarily far apart: for any distance d, there are points that are of a distance at least d apart. A finite universe is a bounded metric space, where there is some distance d such that all points are within distance dof each other. The smallest such d is called the diameter of the universe, in which case the universe has a well-defined "volume" or "scale."

Closed manifolds

Many finite mathematical spaces, e.g. a disc, have an edge or boundary. Spaces that have an edge are difficult to treat, both conceptually and mathematically. Namely, it is very difficult to state what would happen at the edge of such a universe. For this reason, spaces that have an edge are typically excluded from consideration. However, there exist many finite spaces, such as the 3-sphere and 3-torus, which have no edges. Mathematically, these spaces are referred to as beingcompact without boundary. The term compact basically means that it is finite in extent ("bounded") and is a closed set. The term "without boundary" means that the space has no edges. Moreover, so that calculus can be applied, the universe is typically assumed to be adifferentiable manifold. A mathematical object that possess all these properties, compact without boundary and differentiable, is termed a closed manifold. The 3-sphere and 3-torus are both closed manifolds.

Scale

For spherical and hyperbolic spatial geometries, the curvature gives a scale (either by using the radius of curvature or its inverse), a fact noted by Carl Friedrich Gauss in an 1824 letter to Franz Taurinus.[7]

For a flat spatial geometry, the scale of any properties of the topology is arbitrary and may or may not be directly detectable.

The probability of detection of the topology by direct observation depends on the spatial curvature: a small curvature of the local geometry, with a corresponding radius of curvature greater than the observable horizon, makes the topology difficult or impossible to detect if the curvature is hyperbolic. A spherical geometry with a small curvature (large radius of curvature) does not make detection difficult.

Analysis of data from WMAP implies that on the scale to the surface of last scattering, the density parameter of the Universe is within about 0.5% of the value representingspatial flatness.[8]

Curvature

The curvature of the universe places constraints on the topology. If the spatial geometry is spherical, i.e. possess positive curvature, the topology is compact. For a flat (zero curvature) or a hyperbolic (negative curvature) spatial geometry, the topology can be either compact or infinite.[9] Many textbooks erroneously state that a flat universe implies an infinite universe; however, the correct statement is that a flat universe that is alsosimply connected implies an infinite universe.[9] For example, Euclidean space is flat, simply connected and infinite, but the torus is flat, multiply connected, finite and compact.

In general, local to global theoremsin Riemannian geometry relate the local geometry to the global geometry. If the local geometry has constant curvature, the global geometry is very constrained, as described in Thurston geometries.

The latest research shows that even the most powerful future experiments (like SKA, Planck..) will not be able to distinguish between flat, open and closed universe if the true value of cosmological curvature parameter is smaller than 10−4. If the true value of the cosmological curvature parameter is larger than 10−3 we will be able to distinguish between these three models even now.[10]

Universe with zero curvature

In a universe with zero curvature, the local geometry is flat. The most obvious global structure is that ofEuclidean space, which is infinite in extent. Flat universes that are finite in extent include the torus and Klein bottle. Moreover, in three dimensions, there are 10 finite closed flat 3-manifolds, of which 6 are orientable and 4 are non-orientable. The most familiar is the aforementioned 3-Torus universe.

In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching zero. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as that of an open universe.

A flat universe can have zero total energy.

Universe with positive curvature

A positively curved universe is described by spherical geometry, and can be thought of as a three-dimensional hypersphere, or some other spherical 3-manifold (such as the Poincaré dodecahedral space), all of which are quotients of the 3-sphere.

Poincaré dodecahedral space, a positively curved space, colloquially described as "soccerball-shaped", as it is the quotient of the 3-sphere by the binary icosahedral group, which is very close to icosahedral symmetry, the symmetry of a soccer ball. This was proposed by Jean-Pierre Luminet and colleagues in 2003[4][11] and an optimal orientation on the sky for the model was estimated in 2008.[5]

Universe with negative curvature

A hyperbolic universe, one of a negative spatial curvature, is described by hyperbolic geometry, and can be thought of locally as a three-dimensional analog of an infinitely extended saddle shape. There are a great variety ofhyperbolic 3-manifolds, and their classification is not completely understood. For hyperbolic local geometry, many of the possible three-dimensional spaces are informally called horn topologies, so called because of the shape of thepseudosphere, a canonical model of hyperbolic geometry.An example is the Picard horn, a negatively curved space, colloquially described as "funnel-shaped".[6]

Curvature: Open or closed

When cosmologists speak of the universe as being "open" or "closed", they most commonly are referring to whether the curvature is negative or positive. These meanings of open and closed are different from the mathematical meaning of open and closed used for sets in metric spaces and for the mathematical meaning of open and closed manifolds, which gives rise to ambiguity and confusion. In mathematics, there are definitions for a closed manifold (i.e. compact without boundary) and open manifold (i.e. one that is not compact and without boundary,[12]). A "closed universe" is necessarily a closed manifold. An "open universe" can be either a closed or open manifold. For example, theFriedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model the universe is considered to be without boundaries, in which case "compact universe" could describe a universe that is a closed manifold.

Milne model ("spherical" expanding)

Main article: Milne model

Universe in an expanding sphere. The galaxies farthest away are moving fastest and hence experience length contraction and so become smaller to an observer in the centre.

If one applies Minkowski space-based Special Relativity to expansion of the universe, without resorting to the concept of a curved spacetime, then one obtains the Milne model. Any spatial section of the universe of a constant age (theproper time elapsed from the Big Bang) will have a negative curvature; this is merely a pseudo-Euclideangeometric fact analogous to one that concentric spheres in the flatEuclidean space are nevertheless curved. Spacial geometry of this model is an unbounded hyperbolic space. The entire universe is contained within a light cone, namely the future cone of the Big Bang. For any given moment t > 0 ofcoordinate time (assuming the Big Bang has t = 0), the entire universe is bounded by a sphere of radius exactly c. The apparent paradox of an infinite universe contained within a sphere is explained with length contraction: the galaxies farther away, which are travelling away from the observer the fastest, will appear thinner.

This model is essentially adegenerate FLRW for Ω = 0. It is incompatible with observations that definitely rule out such a large negative spatial curvature. However, as a background in which gravitational fields (or gravitons) can operate, due to diffeomorphism invariance, the space on the macroscopic scale, is equivalent to any other (open) solution of Einstein's field equations.

Of course if the structure of space is part of the material from the big bang than you can trow those concepts out the window. Because than it would be able to transform it's structure, like anything else in the Universe.

Pete, that makes not one little bit of sense.

Well for the assumption to made that the structure of space doesn't exist based on geometric shape like you suggested. It would not work if the material is constantly taking new form like everything else in the Universe.
Besides the evidence for an existing structure is undeniable.

To have a law that states "mass gets heavier the faster it goes in space" is already proof of a structure providing resistance.
You can confirm the structure's existence anyway you look at it.

Space itself is shapeless, though it accepts all shapes, and may be warped by gravity.

This is not a law, it is a theory. Again Pete, theories are not laws, no one has ever traveled at the speed of light. Now if the theory is true, then if one designs a gravity field that can reduce or eliminate gravity, does mass still get heavier as speed increases? Once these theories do become laws, and are understood, then we can begin solving the problems of extended space flight.

you seem to have a misunderstanding re: the differentiation between a LAW and a THEORY. Quite simple





LAW
1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary).

3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995). THIS IS THE DEF MOST FREQUENTLY USED
A law can be described with an equation



THEORY

1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984), IN WHICH ALL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS AND NO EVIDENCE REFUTES



2) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).


3) A scheme o system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propnded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]). AND IN ADDITION NO EVIDENCE REFUTES ANYTHING WITHIN A theory

6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

Getting heavier the faster it goes = the resistance from the structure of space is greater the faster you go.
Like any other medium.
If you want to go faster than you need to find a material that can move freely through the structure of space.
And I love Einstein's sense of humor "speed of light squared" lol you know what the odds would be for that exact number be the right one for E=M ( a number that no one will attempt to verify here) lol

He was the first to give a description of energy. So he could have used any number he wanted.

I guess you've decided to admit that triangulation works. So does that mean we can move on to the next step in telling distance to stars?

Spacetime is a way to map the Universe. Not a description of the structure of space. He provides evidence of the structure's existence but not it's description.