Point 1. All speed is relative to an observer and is never absolute (because there is no absolute frame of reference from which one can observe and measure). Point 2. The laws of physics hold true for all frames of reference (i.e., an inch is an inch no matter how fast you are traveling). Point 3. An object in motion will remain so until interfered with (by gravity, air friction, collision with another object, et cetera). I have been struggling with the logic behind the theory that light speed cannot be achieved by matter nor exceeded by anything. Using these three points, it doesn’t add up. I would like to illustrate my reasoning herein for a moment and submit it for a sort of peer review. I do not speak the language of tensor calculus, so my line of reasoning will come from my logical deduction. I conceptualize abstract ideas in my mind visually as opposed to mathematically, so please bear with me. The atomic clock aboard the fast airplane which fell behind its land-based twin seems to prove the theory that motion somehow affects time. The problem I see with this is that (point 1) motion is relative and cannot be absolutely measured, therefore motion itself cannot be the factor which causes the time dilation. But time dilation does occur…so something has to be the factor. There has to be interference because (point 3) objects in motion remain unaffected unless acted upon. Obviously there is gravity to consider. It constantly pulls down on the plane and the atomic clock as it travels over earth’s surface. Also, there is the earth’s magnetic field which the plane and clock are passing through at high speeds. And magnetic fields are well known for causing strange things to happen to atoms who pass through them at high speeds. Perhaps time dilation and length shortening of objects approaching the speed of light only occur because the things we have observed and experimented with were passing through magnetic and gravitic fields. It just doesn’t make sense logically that mere motion (which is not absolutely measurable) would have absolute effects. It is unfortunate we do not have a pure vacuum in which we can experiment outside the influence of gravity and magnetism. Perhaps photons going from the back of the plane to the front of the plane only appear to be making the distance at the speed of light because (A) the length of the plane is being shortened by passing through the magnetic/gravitic fields, or (B) the photons themselves are being hindered by the increased motion through the magnetic/gravitic fields. I’ve never heard of anyone creating a chamber which is void of geomagnetic or gravitic interference, so I know that no one has been able to prove or disprove the theory…which is obviously why it is still a theory and not a law. So, considering these three points and the above illustration, my questions to the scientific community are as follows: I. If light speed cannot be exceeded (or even achieved by matter without converting it to energy in the process), where is the absolute frame of reference which is being used to determine this? II. What is the factor which is interfering with the atoms that are in motion that causes the observable effects such as time dilation and length shortening if not magnetic and gravitic fields? III. What is to stop an object of matter from achieving or even exceeding the speed of light, provided the object has the fuel needed and is traveling through a perfect void where gravity and magnetism are not even factors? IV. How do we know there isn’t something out there beyond the reach of our universe which is right now traveling beyond the speed of light? I am posing these questions seriously because I want a straight answer—in layman’s terms, without the mathematics—which either disproves my logic point-for-point, or explains to me how some other genius physicist has also come to this conclusion and is trying right now to create the proper formulae to prove it mathematically (which would mean I’m not completely crazy by thinking this way and I should consider myself worthy of at least some credit for having sound logical deduction as my biggest talent).