I am sorry that you feel that way. I disagree with your assumptions.
Just as there is nothing in my comment that suggested I understand the Theory of Relativity, there is nothing in your post that suggests you understand it either. Neither of us posted enough information to make that assumption about the other persons understanding, yet you made that assumption anyway. I feel no need to prove that I understand the theory, but my course work and academics should be public knowledge if you feel the need to verify anything. My professor for Special Relativity was Dr. Robert Ross. He should remember me, even though it was 11-12 years ago, so you can ask him if you would like to know what he believes my understanding is.
EDIT: Anyway, I am actually glad that you wrote that, since you made me remember that many people know how relative time and length changes between objects traveling at different rates of speed, but most don't seem to understand why. The why is the simple part, and to be honest the math that maps that difference is also very simple (not compared to Newtonian physics obviously, but it is far from complex). I was trying to state what I considered the base reason; nothing can react without an action. I have since thought of an even more base reason, but to be honest, we are getting into semantics at this point. One object will not react to another object in any way until energy is transferred between the two objects in some way. The fastest way that energy can be transferred was postulated as the speed of light by Einstein. While this may or may not be true (Neutrinos travel faster than light, but are believed to not transfer energy, so if true they wouldn't count when it comes to special relativity) it is really unimportant, as most energy transfers at a rate lower than the speed of light. While just thinking about it from the point of view of one of the objects, it doesn't really matter what the object that is reacting with you is doing, all that matters is how it is reacting with you. That is reality for you, just as the way you are reacting to it is reality for it.
Where you seem to be hung up is where Einstein postulated that 'the speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial reference frames' which is where most of the differences occur between Newtonian and Einsteinian relativity. While this holds true in practice most of the time, it is a rather strange direct quote to make. The reason for it is based on the fact that no object can react to any object without energy transferring between the two, yet it is written in a way that explains the consequences of this behavior and not the behavior itself. This is the part that makes me give credence the theory that he stole this idea from someone else, but I am not going to make any wild assumptions based on something so insignificant like that. It is just as likely that the quotes I have in my old textbooks are taken out of context, and are only meant to explain the consequences and not the reasons for the relative changes.
I really have gotten nowhere in this post. I still believe that Einsteins theory of Special Relativity is relatively simple, and would have been postulated by someone at some point since the theory behind it is not that complex and it is a simple progression from the work Newton had done. The base formulas are also very basic, and are easy to derive once you formulate that theory.
EDIT 2: While going through some old documents, I found this write-up I wrote years ago. This would be a better explanation, since it was soon after I had gone through all the research:
First, let me start off by explain what I was trying to do when I stumbled upon the Theory we know as Relativity. I was studying the physics and chemistry of biology at a cellular level, and I started to realize that time didn’t make sense by itself. I seemed that it was only the movement of objects in relation to each other, or relative motion. If nothing moved in relation to anything else, time would stand still. And time is only the measurement of relative movement; and not direct movement.
Next I went about trying to figure out what level of relative movement affected time at our level. This was a very difficult question. It was obvious pretty quickly during my research that relative movement at a molecular level definitely affected our interpretation of time. However, certain relative motion below that level seems to affect it as well, while others did not. The conclusion that I came up with was that our interpretation of time was controlled at the molecular level, and that the relative location, direction, and energy (speed/acceleration) of the molecules were what controlled time at our level. I had wanted to call the theory “the theory of relativity”, but that was taken already, so I called it “the theory of relative time”. I planned on finishing up the work and publishing it at some point. What I found later was that my work mimicked Einsteins with his theory of Relativity. No wonder I wanted to call it the same thing, it was the same thing!
The problem was that he assumed a maximum relative motion, while I assumed that relative motion could not be constrained. However, as I looked into it more, I realized that he was right. Or at least partially right. There is a maximum relative motion when it comes to mass, and that would be pure kinetic energy. Einstein made the assumption that light was pure kinetic energy, and there is a lot of evidence to support this. They exert momentum, yet have no measurable mass; so it only goes to reason that they are pure kinetic energy. If this is true, than no object of mass would ever be able to accelerate as quickly as light. Even if it isn’t true, light is very close to pure kinetic energy, so mass is unlikely to be able to accelerate much faster than light. Changing a constant C to a variable for the value of pure kinetic energy allows the theory to go on as stated for all objects of mass.
This brings us to the next problem. Not all reactions require a movement of mass to occur. Energy such as Gravity and Electromagnetic Fields require no moving mass to affect objects, so it is possible that reactions can occur faster than what the theory of relativity would suggest possible. So reactions are possible at a faster than light speed, but no object of mass can accelerate as a faster rate than light; unless light is not pure kinetic energy (if light has some amount of potential energy – in the form of mass – than it would be technically possible to travel faster, but this has not been found).
Finally, the usefulness of what I found is that time travel, teleportation and replication are possible although we cannot control any of them. In order to travel back in time, we would need to set all molecules in the test area in the exact spot they were at the target time, traveling in the same direction, with the same amount of kinetic energy. This would be impossible to do according to the Uncertainty Principle. So unless Heisenberg was incorrect, we will never be able to travel back in time. Even if he were wrong, the resources to do so would be beyond any feasibility, and we would only be able to do it for a limited area; the rest of the universe would continue on at the current time. (Traveling forward in time is actually relatively easy, you just need to stop the relative motion of the molecules in the test area, and restart them at a later time. While freezing something to absolute zero is impossible, it would be possible to freeze it enough to slow down time in that area compared to everything else. Of course we already move forward in time anyway, so this should not be of any shock that this is the easiest of the aforementioned things to do.) Replication and Teleportation are really the same thing, except teleportation destroys the original object. This would be accomplished similar to the method described of traveling back in time. Again, it would be impossible to control if the Uncertainty Principle are true, but if you are able to manipulate objects on a molecular level, you should be able to move all molecules from one space to another and place them in the same relative location, with the same relative direction, and the same relative kinetic energy and the object should react the same. Any energy within the object (gravity, EM fields) would be regenerated on the new object, but it should be nearly the same; so that is would be nearly indiscernible from the original object.
Last edited: