I know most people take this theory as law but it has quite a few holes in it.
For the most part it plays a vital role in proving you can't send something faster than the speed of light from a specific point where the force for acceleration is coming from. That goes without saying since the ability to send energy through the air or space faster than the speed of light so far just isn't possible for us.
That is not to say that it's impossible to go faster than the speed of light. Astronomers have already seen galaxies traveling faster than the speed of light away from us due to their spectral shift. This isn't new.
The theory of relativity is simply a revised form of the formula for acceleration or more precisely the formula for latent energy and the ability to alter that energy.
E=mc^2
Energy = the mass of the object x the acceleration desired (m/s^2) in this case c.
It is possible then to calculate what e would be. The problem they say is that the faster an object goes the more mass it has. How can that be though since it's the same amount of matter? What they are really experiencing is a resistance to influence and the most convenient answer they can come up with is that it must have more mass. That would explain what was happening but it isn't a very good one. So much more is involved than mass here. Mass is not the physical object plus the energy it contains but both play a role in it's resistance to influence. The mass takes a certain amount of energy to move and the more energy is already has the more it's pushing against even more energy being added. This still doesn't explain why it's so hard to speed something up to the speed of light though, or past. Also the energy in a moving object is not part of the object itself but a measurement of the influence it would have upon impact, not the same thing as storing heat by any means and therefore not affecting resistance at all.
What about traveling faster than the speed of light? As mentioned above "you can't send something faster than the speed of light from a specific point where the force for acceleration is coming from". That's fine, just bring the source of the acceleration force with you and you don't have this problem. This is how we've already sent probes past the edge of the solar system going at ridiculous speeds, although not nearly as fast as light, fuel consumption is still a kicker. Although with time dilation it thought it was going even faster.... About that.
Now it's generally accepted that time dilation and space time are things people in the future will bend to their will. Again this is based on a flawed assumption and way too much reliance on instruments that aren't quite up to the task. Everything man has made has limits on how well it can work and when and under what conditions. Push it past these and the reliability suffers.
The atomic clock used to test time dilation is just such a case. It uses light to measure light. This is a no-no. English teachers around the world will tell you that you can't define something with itself, this goes for light as well. It was used to show that an object in motion perceives time differently than objects not in motion, although if you think really hard you will realize we're all in motion. Ah ha, that's why it's called relativity! Really? This assumes that the dilation of time is dependant on what object the force was applied to rather than the speed at which it is traveling. Thus when you shoot a cannon the shell is affected and the cannon isn't since it's still there. The dilation on the shell then is really a function of the force applied rather than speed but if that's the case the time dilation should only affect it during acceleration, or during the time force is being applied.
What is work? Work is defined as force applied over time. Coupled with the law that states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction you get the conclusion that both the cannon and the shell had the same amount of work applied to them and should experience the same time dilation. since it is no longer dependant on speed but force.
What really happened when the shell was fired? A force pushed the two objects away from each other. The shell weighs very little and so off it went while the cannon was probably attached to a bunker which was attached to the planet. It weighs more so it's not perceivably moved aside from some vibrating.
It's still relativity. Well, take it a step further. The shell in the air now has a guy on it. He fires another shell back at the cannon, of course this would have to be a large first shell and a much smaller second shell.. This second shell would be traveling faster than the gun it was shot from, being the "stationary object", therefore would have a secondary time dilation faster than the first. To the guys on the ground by the really big cannon this second shell isn't traveling as fast as the first one but since it's fired from a time dilated shell it would be going faster. This assumes that time dilation is real of course. This would also causes a paradox but happens every second of every day in every city on the planet. If you swing your arms when you walk then your torso is the first shell and the back swing of your arm is the second. It isn't as fast but there is still a force applied. If it bothers you that they're parts of the same object then just throw a stick over your shoulder or spit on the ground. That would work too.
Back to time dilations. If someone is experiencing a time dilation then the fact that they are experiencing it allows them to travel faster than light. Since speed is distance over time and they don't experience as much time going by as everyone else based on their speed then by using the following formula for speed you get this.
speed = 1-(1/(1+2X(sqrt(.25+X^2)))) where X is perceived speed.
At around 69% of the speed of light then they perceive they are going the speed of light. At around 89% of the speed of light they perceive they are going twice the speed of light at 95% of the speed of light they perceive they're going 3 times and so on.
What's up with light only going so fast? (and neutrinos) Light is a wave in the electromagnetic field. Wherever the field is, light goes a certain speed based on the movement of the source of the field. The sun has a field that surrounds the solar system. Earth has a field that protects it from the sun and other particles. When the atomic clocks were sped up they were moving in an electromagnetic field and thus altering the results. The car diagram where the light is shot up and back down in a second while it is moving right and left shows the light beam moving in the field, not the car which is exactly what happens. the light will take longer since it's moving in the field where a ball thrown up is moving in the car and not the field. This is how light can move in a relative vacuum since it is merely a ripple in the magnetic field. Since neutrinos have no charge they aren't affected by the field and have been observed moving faster.
What about light particle properties. It can't go through walls. This is due to wave opacity. Light is merely a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. What can pass through one thing might not pass through another. Radio waves are part of this and can go straight through your house and even concrete for a ways. You just can't see them. Everything has an electromagnetic field although most fields are so weak they don't do much. This is how we can see those distant galaxies moving faster than light away from us. The ripples transfer from one field to the next moving the speed of light in the field they are in until they reach us. During transfer between fields the spectrum shifts.
The main problem going faster than light is creating a large enough magnetic field that the object moving doesn't get slowed down too much by competing fields and needing shielding from particles at that speed. This is what makes the solar system a good choice for travel. It's comfortable and relatively speaking already moving faster than light (note: if other galaxies are moving faster than light away from us then we're doing the same thus relative to them moving faster than light).
If I missed something just let me know.
Just FYI, I've been saying this since the late 90's and so far no one has been able to offer any explanation that would make this seem any less solid.
An edit for an avid reader who really doesn't want to be contacted. Thanks for your continued reading:
He (at least I'm assuming he) brought up the equation
noting that it shows the mass of an object to increase to the point where it can't be moved. Although no matter how large pc gets, you will always be able to get and equivalent E out of the equation. To make it easier on the brain just change the unit of measurement so that c = 1. This makes the equation read as such E=sqrt(m^2+(pc)^2). If mass is 1 it further reads E=sqrt(1+(pc)^2).
For those who may be confused with the presence of "c" in the "pc", "pc" is the vector length or magnitude of the system. So in plain English the energy of the system is equal to the square root of 1 plus the square of the magnitude of the system. If you then look at the system by itself the magnitude is 0 making the energy a direct relationship to the mass, E=m. Remember we changed units so that c=1
Here is a final excerpt from a conversation with a professor in the subject on the subject.
As far as those on the ship, if time dilation did work as you say they would believe they were going much faster than light far before they reached it to an observer on the ground. In fact as they approached light speed their perceived speed would approach infinity. So saying you can't break the speed of light no matter the frame of reference means you actually can't go faster than about 70% of the speed of light since the perception on the ship would be light speed, while on earth it would be about 70% of that.
What you all are probably trying to get at is that, to an object in any given location, light will hit it at c (the speed of light). This can more accurately be said that it is approximate since not only can there be some interference but that c is approximate in the first place. This does not mean that the instant before it hits that the speed is the same as when it hits it since the fields do not have to be moving at the same rate. This also has nothing to do with time itself but rather the varying influence of objects on the transfer of light waves. The waves are in fact the interference of the field around all objects. the strength and reach of the field of each object being different and thus affecting the waves to varying degrees. Only in this way can you reliably and with common sense understand what is happening with the speed of objects and the influences they have on light without thinking that time itself is being altered.
Also another post for clarification of the definition of stationary.
This has to be one of my greatest annoyances. So far there are galaxies that are in fact going faster than light already away from us. The statement would then say that they have infinite mass and beyond (it's supposed to sound stupid).
What is really happening here is not an increase in the object's inherit mass.
Think of it this way. As an object in any fluid moves through the fluid it has resistance imposed on it. The faster the object moves through it the more resistance it encounters.
The same thing happens in a vacuum. The fields that light travels in are dominated by the sun, at least in our solar system, until you get to an object with a field that can sufficiently take over or at least co-influence the wave. Once you get far enough away from the sun you then enter the galaxy's domain of influence. Here your resistance will change and depending on which direction you are going will help or hinder further acceleration. As light passes from field to field it goes the speed of light relative to the current field (based on the dominant objects or group of objects).
