The Theory of RELATIVITY

[arian]

[center]Relativity - 101 Grade school - High school version I've been told, and that this has been known and taught for over a hundred years![/center]

Relativity
Physics - the dependence of various physical phenomena on relative motion of the observer and the observed objects, esp. regarding the nature and behavior of light, space, time, and gravity.

OK, .. so there seems to be a various physical phenomena on relative motion of the observer and the observed object, even I have noticed this phenomena, it is somewhat a different perspective going 150mph on a motorcycle vs standing still and watching someone pass me by doing 150 mph on a motorcycle.

This states that all motion is relative and that the velocity of light in a vacuum has a constant value that nothing can exceed.
E=MC^2 - where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light. Thus, Einstein stated that the universal proportionality factor between equivalent amounts of energy and mass is equal to the speed of light squared. The formula is dimensionally consistent and holds true irrespective of which system of measurement units is used.

All motion is relative, got it, but why ‘state’ that “the velocity of light in a vacuum has a constant value that nothing can exceed� .. and then go and square the speed of light in the equation E=MC^2?
OK, so this equation states that ‘C’ is Speed of Light which has a constant value of 186,282 miles / s.
Now squaring a speed that which nothing can exceed gives us a somewhat faster than ‘C’ speed of light, ... about 186,282 times faster because C squared is 34,700,983,524 miles / second.

Fine, let’s use that value of 34,700,983,524 miles / second to figure out the effects, or the relativity to T (time) on M (mass) when it is in motion at given V (velocity)?

- Among its consequences are the following: the mass of a body increases, and its length (in the direction of motion) shortens, as its speed increases;

OK, so the Mass of a body increases with speed, another word something with let’s say a mass of 50lb. becomes heavier and heavier as it goes faster and faster. So any mass reaching the assumed speed of light squared (34,700,983,524 miles / s) would become infinitely heavy, .. is this correct?

.. and ALSO, it’s length in the direction of the motion shortens, which I understand that at the speed of C^2 (34,700,983,524 miles / s) the Mass (any mass) would become the size of this universe (since they don’t consider anything outside the universe), meaning infinitely heavy and infinitely big .. is that correct?

- Holding true more generally, any body having mass has an equivalent amount of energy, and all forms of energy resist acceleration by a force and have gravitational attraction; the term matter has no universally-agreed definition under this modern view.

Continuing with the Energy=Mass C^2, what I’m understanding is (since ‘infinite’ is not imaginable for them in this universe, we’ll just stick with the size of the universe (whatever that may be?) .. so Mass at the speed of light squared, would become as ‘heavy’ as the entire universe, and as big as the universe since as stated; “the mass of a body increases, and its length (in the direction of motion) shortens as its speed increases� meaning that the leading end of the mass going at 34,700,983,524 miles / s would get shorter and shorter until it reached its trailing end, and since mass and energy is equal, it would all be one huge mass of energy (only this would happen at just past the speed of light, the effects of mass moving 186,282 times the speed of light would be much different effect) ... do I have this right?

But that is not all, they say that at the speed of light (especially at speeds C squared), Time would also slow down to a stop. Now if all the IFF’s are true, that would make sense since Mass and Weight would reach infinite, it would engulf the entire universe including time & space, thus everything would become an enormous gravitational Mass void of space, time or light ... am I close?

Is this what they call a ‘Gravitational Singularity’?

Question; to get to this point, don’t we need space and time where mass, any mass could have room to accelerate to reach the speed of light squared?

Let’s move on with relativity to how things 'might' appear by different observers at speed of light at 186,282 miles per second, or squared at 34,700,983,524 miles / second;

- the time interval between two events occurring in a moving body appears greater to a stationary observer; and mass and energy are equivalent and interconvertible.

As I understand and some of it based on - Among its consequences are the following: the mass of a body increases, and its length (in the direction of motion) shortens as its speed increases that if somebody was traveling near the speed of light for millions of years would have experienced only days, or just minutes vs the man standing would have been long gone and vanished millions of years ago,
also if a man traveling at the speed of light was able to look over at the watch of a man standing still, it would be flying by years not minutes, while his at the speed of light would be standing still, or stopped.

How close am I to understanding the Theory of Relativity as described by Einstein's equation of E=MC^2? And what parts am I misunderstanding?

Here are some doubts about Einstein's (that is if it's truly Einstein's idea?) Theory of Relativity, so the question for the Original Post is: 'Am I wrong, and if so, where am I wrong?'

1. 'C'^2 is 186,282 times faster than the assumed speed of light in a vacuum. How can Mass move so fast, and where is it moving IN? (not the universe we know, because there is a 'speed-limit' in our universe as defined by Einstein, which is mutually agreed upon, .. right?)

2. it is claimed that; nothing is faster than the speed of light, yet they assume that on the outer-skirts of our expanding fabric-of-space lies entire galaxies that are expanding ten times the speed of light, AND still emitting light at the speed of light both in the direction of the expansion, and leaving a trail behind?

3. Why is it that at these speeds distance would be shorter, not the time it takes to get to these distances? Matter of fact, they claim 'time would stop' at 186,282 miles per second. This can only mean one thing; that once these expanding galaxies passed the speed of light, they are actually coming behind us, or as we see ourselves in the mirror, we behold our face from the back. That what we see out there is US passing through us?

But that can happen only UP-TO twice the speed of light, because three times the speed of light would pass through the 'twice the speed of light', and if Einstein is right about squaring 'C', we are actually seeing 186,282 TIMES the outskirts of our universe passing through us! That would be like taking a mirror and looking back INTO a mirror, ... our universe creating infinite universes... or am I missing something?

I could use any help on this,

Thanks.

[arian]

<deleted duplicate>

[arian]

I am glad you acknowledge this 'view' which can be anywhere and observe anything in space. For instance the space station-ships-shuttle paradox, we can see and explain everything that's going on, yet we are not part of any frame of reference, .. isn't that correct??

So would it be OK to name it a 'Birds Eye View' (BEV)?

That's fine. We'll use this term from now on.

Great.

Here is my headache, .. please help me out here; From our 'birds eye view' BEV we see a space station.
We also see a ship and a shuttle traveling head to head as they pass the space-station.
The shuttle is traveling at 0.8 C (launched from a platform going the opposite direction at 0.4 C) Would we call the shuttle; "Shuttle traveling at 0.8 C", or would we say "Shuttle traveling at 0.4 C"? .. and why?

We could do either, all we would be doing is switch from "relative to the platform" to "relative to the space station." Either one is fine as long as you make it clear what that speed is relative to / what frame of reference you are using.

What if we have a Platform traveling at 0.8 C and a shuttle takes off from it the same direction at 0.8 C, .. we would have a shuttle traveling 1.6 C in the universe.
Or if it took off like before, the opposite direction then we also would have a shuttle traveling 1.6 C relative to the Platform in our universe. ??

Bust Nak, please see my last post to JohnPaul and see what you think?

The ship is traveling relative to the space-station at 0.4 C, head and head with the shuttle which in its own reference frame is traveling at 0.8 C. I understand the mechanics why they are traveling next to each other (from the space station reference frame both are at .4 C and from the platforms frame both are traveling at 0.8 C, .. but we are standing at a Birds Eye View, ..

1. shouldn't we interpret each vehicles speed from it's own original frame of reference?

You could do that, as long as you clearly label each of your frames of reference. There is no definite "should" when it comes to choosing frames of reference. I would however warn you that if you switch around too much, you would likely introduce confusion. Why not pick one in advance and stick to it?

But let's say I pick the center of the Black-hole as my reference frame that the planet Krypton is being sucked into, and calculate everything relative to that?

From Krypton a Platform takes off at 0.8 C,

Still keeping the Black Hole as my Frame of reference, a shuttle takes off from the Platform at 0.8 C, then shuts off his engines and continues to glide. The shuttle is now cruising at 1.6 C in our universe which we are observing from our Birds Eye View.

The Shuttle has these pods it can shoot out at a very high velocity, with sensors to evaluate or spot danger ahead. They shoot one out at 0.4 C

I have remained under Einstein's speed limit of C with each take off, I kept the Black-hole as my reference point through each take-off, and yet we have the pod from the shuttle traveling at 2.0 C relative to the Black-hole

IF "Nothing in our universe can travel faster than C", .. so what gives?

As an aside, like I said earlier, if you are using the object itself as a frame of reference to measure its speed, you would always get zero, because a man is stationary relative to himself. The distance from the man to himself is always zero. It's never very useful to use the object itself as it's frame of reference. So we better clear up what you mean by "its own original frame of reference" first before we move on...

Yes of course you are right, and I understand that. Only what I meant was to use "Its own original reference that the object was relative to." Another word; what it originally took off from. If a shuttle took off from the Platform at 0.8 C, that would be its own original frame of reference, or shuttle/platform at 0.8 C frame of reference. Does that make more sense?

Either way I see no way we could keep the speed limit in the universe under or even at 186,282 m/p/s (other than light, .. which I still can't understand why?)

Thanks again my friend.

[Bust Nak]

What if we have a Platform traveling at 0.8 C and a shuttle takes off from it the same direction at 0.8 C, .. we would have a shuttle traveling 1.6 C in the universe.
Or if it took off like before, the opposite direction then we also would have a shuttle traveling 1.6 C relative to the Platform in our universe. ??

Bust Nak, please see my last post to JohnPaul and see what you think?

First of all, note that you didn't say what that 0.8C speed is relative to. What is the frame of reference for that speed? I take it you meant "Krypton" as montion in the post to John.

So a platform is traveling 0.8C relative to Krypton. And a shuttle is launched from the platform at 0.8 C relative to the platform. Does that means the shuttle is travelling at 1.6C relative to Krypton? The naive answer would be, sure, why not?

The correct answer however, is no. It would instead mean the shuttle is travelling at roughly 0.88C relative to Krypton. At near light speed, the effect of time dilation and length contraction is significan enough that simply adding the velocities together is no longer a good approximation of the actual speed. Now I am not confortable enough with the math to go futher, you would have to look elsewhere for the explaination for the equations.

But let's say I pick the center of the Black-hole as my reference frame that the planet Krypton is being sucked into, and calculate everything relative to that?

From Krypton a Platform takes off at 0.8 C,

Still keeping the Black Hole as my Frame of reference, a shuttle takes off from the Platform at 0.8 C, then shuts off his engines and continues to glide. The shuttle is now cruising at 1.6 C in our universe which we are observing from our Birds Eye View.

The Shuttle has these pods it can shoot out at a very high velocity, with sensors to evaluate or spot danger ahead. They shoot one out at 0.4 C

I have remained under Einstein's speed limit of C with each take off, I kept the Black-hole as my reference point through each take-off, and yet we have the pod from the shuttle traveling at 2.0 C relative to the Black-hole

IF "Nothing in our universe can travel faster than C", .. so what gives?

Or so you would think should happen, but experimental result from atomic clocks in airplanes and whatnots, have confirmed time and distance doesn't match what we think should happen. Which means that our thinking that is wrong. And that's where Einstein comes in, he came up with equations for working out speed that DOES match the experimental result. And using these new questions, the shuttle does not infact travel at 1.6C relative to the black hole, nor would the pods of the shuttles be travelling at 2C relative to the black hole.

Yes of course you are right, and I understand that. Only what I meant was to use "Its own original reference that the object was relative to." Another word; what it originally took off from. If a shuttle took off from the Platform at 0.8 C, that would be its own original frame of reference, or shuttle/platform at 0.8 C frame of reference. Does that make more sense?

Sure, just be aware that if you don't state it explicitly, I would have to guess which frame of reference you are using.

Either way I see no way we could keep the speed limit in the universe under or even at 186,282 m/p/s (other than light, .. which I still can't understand why?)

When the experimental result doesn't march our thinking, we don't get to say to the univese, hey you are doing it wrong, instead we change our thinking.

Realizing that it is easy for two objects in one reference frame to move much faster than the speed of light, or 186,282 m/p/s through space, how did Einstein lock in this 'speed limit' that states "Nothing in our universe could travel faster than 186,282 m/p/s"?

Einstein doesn't need to lock this speed limit, the speed limit is already in place, we just discovered it. Thinking it ought to be easy for objects in one reference frame to move much faster and faster indefinitely, we tested it and failed. Einstein simply explained why our expectations were wrong.

[olavisjo]

.

So a platform is traveling 0.8C relative to Krypton. And a shuttle is launched from the platform at 0.8 C relative to the platform. Does that means the shuttle is travelling at 1.6C relative to Krypton? The naive answer would be, sure, why not?

The correct answer however, is no. It would instead mean the shuttle is travelling at roughly 0.88C relative to Krypton. At near light speed, the effect of time dilation and length contraction is significan enough that simply adding the velocities together is no longer a good approximation of the actual speed. Now I am not confortable enough with the math to go futher, you would have to look elsewhere for the explaination for the equations.

Try 0.976 C.

Speed = (S₁ + S₂) / (1 - S₁S₂/C²)

[sfs]

It's worth noting that this is not some kind of theoretical result, or extrapolation of a theory far beyond where it has been tested. In particle physics experiments, particles routinely travel at very large fractions of the speed of light, and they also routinely decay in flight. The resulting particle often has a velocity that is close to c in the rest frame of the decaying particle, so you often have situations where you are adding velocities like 0.9c and 0.8c. When you measure the velocity of the new particle, though, it's always less than c. (Indeed, particle physics experiments wouldn't work at all if Special Relativity weren't accurate.)

[Bust Nak]

.

So a platform is traveling 0.8C relative to Krypton. And a shuttle is launched from the platform at 0.8 C relative to the platform. Does that means the shuttle is travelling at 1.6C relative to Krypton? The naive answer would be, sure, why not?

The correct answer however, is no. It would instead mean the shuttle is travelling at roughly 0.88C relative to Krypton. At near light speed, the effect of time dilation and length contraction is significan enough that simply adding the velocities together is no longer a good approximation of the actual speed. Now I am not confortable enough with the math to go futher, you would have to look elsewhere for the explaination for the equations.

Try 0.976 C.

Speed = (S₁ + S₂) / (1 - S₁S₂/C²)

Point taken. But just because I like to have the last word. Speed = (S₁ + S₂) / (1 + S₁S₂/C²)

[arian]

What if we have a Platform traveling at 0.8 C and a shuttle takes off from it the same direction at 0.8 C, .. we would have a shuttle traveling 1.6 C in the universe.
Or if it took off like before, the opposite direction then we also would have a shuttle traveling 1.6 C relative to the Platform in our universe. ??

Bust Nak, please see my last post to JohnPaul and see what you think?

First of all, note that you didn't say what that 0.8C speed is relative to. What is the frame of reference for that speed? I take it you meant "Krypton" as montion in the post to John.

So a platform is traveling 0.8C relative to Krypton. And a shuttle is launched from the platform at 0.8 C relative to the platform. Does that means the shuttle is travelling at 1.6C relative to Krypton? The naive answer would be, sure, why not?

The correct answer however, is no. It would instead mean the shuttle is travelling at roughly 0.88C relative to Krypton. At near light speed, the effect of time dilation and length contraction is significan enough that simply adding the velocities together is no longer a good approximation of the actual speed. Now I am not confortable enough with the math to go futher, you would have to look elsewhere for the explaination for the equations.

Thanks again Bust Nak

Well, even if you did show me the math, I probably wouldn't understand it anyways, so we are stuck with general information on hand. We still can find some answer to WHY a spaceship could not pass C, or is this strictly a mathematical limitation like 2,000+2,000=4,000 .. not 4,000.000000001 nor 3,999.999999999, but exactly 4,000.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 - infinite?

But let's say I pick the center of the Black-hole as my reference frame that the planet Krypton is being sucked into, and calculate everything relative to that?

From Krypton a Platform takes off at 0.8 C,

Still keeping the Black Hole as my Frame of reference, a shuttle takes off from the Platform at 0.8 C, then shuts off his engines and continues to glide. The shuttle is now cruising at 1.6 C in our universe which we are observing from our Birds Eye View.

The Shuttle has these pods it can shoot out at a very high velocity, with sensors to evaluate or spot danger ahead. They shoot one out at 0.4 C

I have remained under Einstein's speed limit of C with each take off, I kept the Black-hole as my reference point through each take-off, and yet we have the pod from the shuttle traveling at 2.0 C relative to the Black-hole

IF "Nothing in our universe can travel faster than C", .. so what gives?

Or so you would think should happen, but experimental result from atomic clocks in airplanes and whatnots, have confirmed time and distance doesn't match what we think should happen.

These experiments were done AFTER Einstein came up with his speed-limit rule, which was only math at that time. I have seen some pretty amazing tricks with math, and for the same purpose, or for the same One World agenda, others have little choice but follow. Should they come up with something outside of the established Big-bang Evolutionist Expanding universe idea, they are ignored just like rooftop solar power to generate electricity. So the clocks could easily have been set off a little on purpose to keep that speed limit alive.

I want to analyze Einstein's reasons for limiting speed?

Wikipedia - Faster-than-light (also superluminal or FTL) communications and travel refer to the propagation of information or matter faster than the speed of light. Under the special theory of relativity, a particle (that has rest mass) with subluminal velocity needs infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light, although special relativity does not forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light at all times (tachyons).

On the other hand, what some physicists refer to as "apparent" or "effective" FTL depends on the hypothesis that unusually distorted regions of spacetime might permit matter to reach distant locations in less time than light could in normal or undistorted spacetime. Although according to current theories matter is still required to travel subluminally with respect to the locally distorted spacetime region, apparent FTL is not excluded by general relativity.
Examples of FTL proposals are the Alcubierre drive and the traversable wormhole, although their physical plausibility is uncertain.

* It says: Apparent FTL is not excluded by general relativity, .. only my example is NOT apparent but very real.

* It also states: Under the special theory of relativity, a particle (that has rest mass) with subluminal velocity needs infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light

First, what the heck is "subliminal velocity"?
Second, who says a planet being sucked into a black hole is not already traveling at 0.6 C? So if we send a ship out straight from the whirlpool the planet is traveling closer and close to the center of the black hole at let's say 0.6 C, it would be traveling at 1.2 C relative to the nearest planet that is not being effected by the black-hole.
It would not take infinite energy to accelerate a ship to 0.6 C correct? The ship would only be traveling at 0.6 C RELATIVE to Krypton.

But yes, .. if we go by Agenda 21st century mathematical rules that have been established hundreds of years ago, then by the limitations these equations with their own rules create, .. NOTHING is allowed to pass C.

It is claimed that there is no universal reference frame, but that speed is calculated within each individuals reference frame. Fine, then let's analyze this and let me know which act is in error;

A Platform takes off from Krypton and travels at 0.6 C. After about a year gliding at 0.6 C they send a shuttle out ahead of them at another 0.6 C

*The shuttle shows a speed limit relative to the Platform at 0.6 C
* The Platform still shows a speed limit from Krypton at 0.6 C

- In our Birds Eye View we can see a Platform cruising away from Krypton, then we see a shuttle taking off from the Platform and leaving the Platform at the same rate as the Platform is leaving, or distancing itself from Krypton.

- From the Platform relative to Krypton reference frame, we get a velocity of 0.6 C

- From the shuttle relative to Platform we get 0.6 C

The Shuttle shows its traveling at 1.2 C relative to Krypton. Why is this not possible?

But wait, WHAT IF a year later they pass a Space station and in the Space Station Birds Eye View they TIME a Shuttle pass them by at 1.4 C, (they haven't seen the Platform coming up yet?) The Space station was sent off this huge meteor they have been mining on a few months ago, to monitor for any sign of life, and it just sits in orbit of the huge Meteor at a relative speed of 0 mph! - now we have 1.4 C relative to this Space station and Shuttle? Why is this not possible?

Note, we don't know how fast the meteor is traveling since it passed several black-holes that whipped it off its original course, that is why they set up a small space station to monitor for any sign of life, or other ships passing by, .. they are rich in minerals, but lost in space.
They have no idea what speed they are traveling at, they can only check their speed relative to whatever lifeless planet they pass by. Sometimes they get 1.6 C, and sometimes they pass a planet at 0.1 C

I would like to know WHY an object in space MUST stay within the C-speed limit?

So what happens when in a huge empty part of space one meteor traveling at .6 C, comes into the frame of reference of another meteor traveling at .6 C the opposite direction? We have no idea where they originate from, they could have been traveling for billions of years, .. all we know is what we can measure, which is what speed they are relative to, .. that is; each other, which is 1.6 C
Now these meteors could be, besides traveling apart from each other at 1.6 C ALSO circling around our Milky Way at 3.196 C at the same time! Who says this cannot be happening? Who, some-made-to-order mathematical equations?

Besides, what is time?

TIME: - Wikipedia Dictionary
Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe – a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[20][21] The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[15] and Immanuel Kant,[22][23] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing,

Or does a constant speed between two objects give us the accurate definition of TIME?
I mean it's like saying: from here you can get there in 3 minutes, but never in 2, because that's how time works in our universe.

So is TIME a clock? Who says a clock measures TIME? Tick, .. tock, .. tick, .. tock, .. some run faster and some run slower. I mean we could set popcorn popping as 'TIME'.

Taking in consideration all these different realities that we can observe about TIME, AND SPEEDS, how in the world can anyone honestly say that mass can only travel at 186,282m/p/s and not an iota more?

OK, .. so you are saying that in that particular reference frame (2.0 C) would slow down, right?

So what if
That would mean that as I get closer to C
Which means that our thinking that is wrong. And that's where Einstein comes in, he came up with equations for working out speed that DOES match the experimental result. And using these new questions, the shuttle does not infact travel at 1.6C relative to the black hole, nor would the pods of the shuttles be travelling at 2C relative to the black hole.

So what if we harness some incredible energy enough for us to be able to reach planets, or even suns and use their gravitation to somehow swing us faster, and faster? Imagine going 0.99 C and get into an orbit-swing? What, do we slam against this speed limit like a brick wall?
What would happen?

Yes of course you are right, and I understand that. Only what I meant was to use "Its own original reference that the object was relative to." Another word; what it originally took off from. If a shuttle took off from the Platform at 0.8 C, that would be its own original frame of reference, or shuttle/platform at 0.8 C frame of reference. Does that make more sense?

Sure, just be aware that if you don't state it explicitly, I would have to guess which frame of reference you are using.

I believe you meant, to make sure I state it explicitly. Yes, I would state it explicitly, just as I have above where the pod is traveling 2.0 C relative to the Black-hole.

Either way I see no way we could keep the speed limit in the universe under or even at 186,282 m/p/s (other than light, .. which I still can't understand why?)

When the experimental result doesn't march our thinking, we don't get to say to the univese, hey you are doing it wrong, instead we change our thinking.

Come on Bust Nak, that sound way to religious for me, and I have overcome indoctrination. I can easily change my thinking when I see facts. Formulas can be deceiving and even wrong.
I want to know why a pod couldn't reach 2.0 C the way I explained it? What, .. the shuttle taking off from the platform at .6 C would break Einstein's speed law? I thought from a standing position a ship could accelerate to 0.6 C? We have absolutely no idea how fast our planet with our Milky Way is moving through our universe, we may be traveling .99999 C and don't even know it? So are you saying that if we sent a rocket towards the direction our milky-way/earth is traveling we could only reach .00001 C and our rocket would reach infinite weight, shrink to pin-size and time would stop?

Realizing that it is easy for two objects in one reference frame to move much faster than the speed of light, or 186,282 m/p/s through space, how did Einstein lock in this 'speed limit' that states "Nothing in our universe could travel faster than 186,282 m/p/s"?

Einstein doesn't need to lock this speed limit, the speed limit is already in place, we just discovered it. Thinking it ought to be easy for objects in one reference frame to move much faster and faster indefinitely, we tested it and failed. Einstein simply explained why our expectations were wrong.

Yes, but how did he discover it? Did he use particle accelerators back then, what, what made him realize things could not travel faster than C? I mean Newton proved gravity, how did Einstein prove his theory? By a formula, .. a formula sets the rules of the universe?

Thanks again

First I would like an absolute definition of TIME, .. or even a rough universally accepted definition before I could accept a limit of 186,282.000000000000 - infinite m/p/s on speed, .. I mean I'm sure you must agree, no?

[arian]

It's worth noting that this is not some kind of theoretical result, or extrapolation of a theory far beyond where it has been tested. In particle physics experiments, particles routinely travel at very large fractions of the speed of light, and they also routinely decay in flight. The resulting particle often has a velocity that is close to c in the rest frame of the decaying particle, so you often have situations where you are adding velocities like 0.9c and 0.8c. When you measure the velocity of the new particle, though, it's always less than c. (Indeed, particle physics experiments wouldn't work at all if Special Relativity weren't accurate.)

Thanks sfs.

Yes so you say, but I also know that to measure something to an accepted accuracy you have to have a measuring tool TEN TIMES more accurate than what you're measuring. Another word to measure a diameter of .001, you have to have a .0001 micrometer or indicator.
But if .001 inches is as accurate as anything in the universe can get (I'm referring to C), .. how in the world will they measure something that is .0011?

See what I mean? I mean do they have equipment and sensors that can measure TEN TIMES the accuracy of 186,282 miles per second?
If they do, how were they able to calibrate it? What 'laws of physics' did they use to invent such a sensor? I mean the laws of physics that rule the universe would have to be broken to create such a sensor, .. won't you agree?

Besides, why would they even want to invent a measuring gauge that measures something "beyond' that has been accepted, .. AND works fine"?

Every particle that reaches C you get a green light. Everything that goes beyond C, .. you get a 'Beep!' an error and ignore it, .. right?

Why? Because IT IS NOT POSSIBLE, .. not in our universe anyways, right?

[sfs]

Yes, but how did he discover it? Did he use particle accelerators back then, what, what made him realize things could not travel faster than C? I mean Newton proved gravity, how did Einstein prove his theory? By a formula, .. a formula sets the rules of the universe?

Einstein noticed that the rules controlling how things behave electromagnetically, which we know as Maxwell's equations, imply Special Relativity. Maxwell's equations are based on an immense set of observations.

[sfs]

Yes so you say, but I also know that to measure something to an accepted accuracy you have to have a measuring tool TEN TIMES more accurate than what you're measuring. Another word to measure a diameter of .001, you have to have a .0001 micrometer or indicator.
But if .001 inches is as accurate as anything in the universe can get (I'm referring to C), .. how in the world will they measure something that is .0011?

See what I mean? I mean do they have equipment and sensors that can measure TEN TIMES the accuracy of 186,282 miles per second?

Your statements are (more or less correct), but the question you asked doesn't mean anything. You can measure 186,282 miles/sec to 10% accuracy, or to 1% accuracy, or to .001% accuracy; there's no accuracy attached just to the value itself. To rule out the idea that things travel at 1.2c, a 1% accurate measure would be more than sufficient.

If they do, how were they able to calibrate it?

That would vary depending on the experiment, but it's trivial to do: just measure how long it takes for light to travel the length of the experimental area. That's c by definition.

What 'laws of physics' did they use to invent such a sensor?

The laws of physics that are routinely exploited to make semiconductor devices. This isn't some kind of esoteric device. For the simplest version, all you need is rudimentary particle detectors (the simplest kinds you could make in your basement) and an electronic timer. You measure the length that your particles travel with a tape measure, and time how long it takes them to travel it. When I was doing this kind of thing in the 80s, you could buy off the shelf electronics that could easily measure times with an accuracy of 1 nanosecond. Light travels 1 foot per nanosecond, so that accuracy on a 50 foot flight path gives you 2% accuracy. If you were really trying to measure the speed accurately, you could easily do much, much better than that even then.

I mean the laws of physics that rule the universe would have to be broken to create such a sensor, .. won't you agree?

No, I don't agree. I think that's nuts.

Besides, why would they even want to invent a measuring gauge that measures something "beyond' that has been accepted, .. AND works fine"?

Looking for things that are beyond what is currently accepted is pretty much the definition of a physicist.

Every particle that reaches C you get a green light. Everything that goes beyond C, .. you get a 'Beep!' an error and ignore it, .. right?

Wrong. It's fine not understanding science -- but pretending your fantasies about how science works are real is pretty silly.

Why? Because IT IS NOT POSSIBLE, .. not in our universe anyways, right?

The only reason we think it's not possible is because we've looked.