We can never out run the light we see?

You seem to be far more knowledgeable than all of us running into several billions. After seeing your credentials here I thought "ignorance (of the knowledge you have) is bliss". Good luck !

The speed of light depends on the density of the massives space structure and time potential of space..

In the case of the Fizeau experiment it has been shown that the speed of light in the medium of a fluid like water at different temperature is variable.

Hence in the physical Universe if your soul had to travel beyond the boundary of space at the speed of light as we measured

relative to the earth; it would be too slow, and would take ions of time to get to Heaven.

Hence there are many unanswered questions about how fast motion can actually take place in the Physical Universe.

Basically Einstein postulate of special relativity is concerned about the speed of light is something that was assumed at the time he based his theory of relativity.

The velocity of light is not independent of the source.When the sun radiates light particle flux it does it in multi direction;hence different velocities.

Perhaps explain how its conceivable that an object with mass can travel faster than the speed of light.

Not one scientist would agree that Einstein was "a little wobbly", especially since every experiment and observation in the last century supports Einstein's relativity.

And explain why the current understanding is incorrect.

I am sure we would all love to hear your mathematical proof.

No.. we can never out run the light we see.

At least, not in a dead heat. No amount of mass can travel at or exceed the speed of light *in this universe*, but it *is* conceivable to exit this universe and re-enter it in another place, seemingly ahead of the light you were trying to out-run.

So far, in 100 years of study, I don't think Einstein shows any wobblyness in the least.

No, you've only proven you're not very bright, that little thrust and the descent into the Black Hole would still not accelerate you beyond the speed of light, special relativity time dilation and Lorentz space contraction would see to that plus your apparent mass would've increased to a third party's reference frame. You've missed out completely on what special relativity means. Go back to school and I mean grade school.

*Never* might not be the best way to say it -- but, for now, we can't.

Einstein's math calls for faster-than light speed in the equation E=mc2.

It is c that must be squared, which validates the assumption that Einstein must have known

that light has *its own* absolute speed and, aside from mathmatics and equations,

there are speeds and conditions which are far greater.

'Quantum Non-Locality' and 'Thought' aside ....

whether it be our own little feets, or some big-@ss plasma engine --

we won't be out-running the light we see, or are in, any time soon.

NOTHING WRONG WITH 'DAT --- HEY, I'M OVER HERE NOW !!!

It is possible for there to be no light but it would be in a worm hole also known as a black hole in which no light can escape from if a worm hole appeared near the sun a small part would be not light but if it was closer to earth we may not see the sun because of the difference in distance, the chances of this happening though are one in a million, so my point is you are correct but wrong at the same time

It's possible to outrun light by going through a wormhole.

This happens on the Planck scale but is very improbable of happening on a macroscopic scale.

Going (or even sending a message) faster than light within a single Lorentz frame is a violation of causality.

We don't need to. You need to come up with the math that shows you're right. Einsteins math has already been proven.

Aaaand it's incorrect because... you say so ?

How about you show us why you are right and the well tested alternative is wrong ?