[Petrochemicals (OP)]

I dont know whether this was covered but i couldnt find anything

https://futurism.com/a-powerful-energy-beam-in-space-seems-to-exceed-the-speed-of-light/

Einstein, Relativity, wrong !

Obvious to me really.

[Kryptid]

This is actually not a new observation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

M87 measured by hubble and calculations performed, same m87 as in the wiki link

Some contrary evidence   Edit
As early as 1983, at the "superluminal workshop" held at Jodrell Bank Observatory, referring to the seven then-known superluminal jets,

Schilizzi ... presented maps of arc-second resolution [showing the large-scale outer jets] ... which ... have revealed outer double structure in all but one (3C 273) of the known superluminal sources. An embarrassment is that the average projected size [on the sky] of the outer structure is no smaller than that of the normal radio-source population.[2]

In other words, the jets are evidently not, on average, close to our line-of-sight. (Their apparent length would appear much shorter if they were.)

In 1993, Thomson et al. suggested that the (outer) jet of the quasar 3C 273 is nearly collinear to our line-of-sight. Superluminal motion of up to ~9.6c has been observed along the (inner) jet of this quasar.[3][4][5]

Superluminal motion of up to 6c has been observed in the inner parts of the jet of M87. To explain this in terms of the "narrow-angle" model, the jet must be no more than 19° from our line-of-sight.[6] But evidence suggests that the jet is in fact at about 43° to our line-of-sight.[7] The same group of scientists later revised that finding and argue in favour of a superluminal bulk movement in which the jet is embedded.[8]

Suggestions of turbulence and/or "wide cones" in the inner parts of the jets have been put forward to try to counter such problems, and there seems to be some evidence for this.[9]

Sounds like makeup to me, but if inside black holes things are different to standard laws why should the jets be different ? Is a jet a continuation of the hole ?

[jeffreyH]

I have never been convinced by the line of sight argument. However that doesn't mean I am convinced by the superluminal motion argument either. Some solution that affects time may be more convincing.

[yor_on]

Thinking of 'c' is one thing, causality is another :)

So what about it, If now 'c' can be overcome, what do you think that would mean for causality?

[Kryptid]

Thinking of 'c' is one thing, causality is another

So what about it, If now 'c' can be overcome, what do you think that would mean for causality?

It's possible that causality could still be preserved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle

[Bored chemist]

Can we set up a special area in the forum for questions that can be answered in 1 word without actually reading the OP?
For example
Q "Does this beam of energy in space really exceed the speed of light?"
A No

[jeffreyH]

Can we set up a special area in the forum for questions that can be answered in 1 word without actually reading the OP?
For example
Q "Does this beam of energy in space really exceed the speed of light?"
A No

No.

[Bored chemist]

Can we set up a special area in the forum for questions that can be answered in 1 word without actually reading the OP?
For example
Q "Does this beam of energy in space really exceed the speed of light?"
A No

No.

:-)