Faster than light relative speeds (I know it's impossible)

[coktail]

haha, You don't need to be so defensive to prove that you aren't a crackpot. You can simply say "I have read that FTL travel is impossible, I just can't wrap my head around."
But perhaps, its only me, who considers 'knowing' something only if I understand it.
Or may be its your way of showing respect and trust to the main stream science. Either way its your choice.

Both. I was being respectful to the mainstream science, and also trying to explain that I am not a crackpot.

 

[solarflare]

Regardless of what Einstein did, this site is not designed for speculation nor for advancing the state of the art in science. It's mission is primarily educational, for discussing and learning current mainstream science, not developing new science.

Can you provide a specific reference for the supposed flaws?

AFAIK, SR is self consistent and is consistent with all experimental evidence today within it's domain of applicability.

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=430554

 

[Dale]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=430554

I didn't see anything in that thread about Einstein asserting a breakdown of relativity at the Planck scale.

 

[solarflare]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang, but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point (the Schwarzschild radius) would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating). This is again according to general relativity without quantum mechanics, which forbids wavelike particles entering a space smaller than their wavelength. These hypothetical singularities are also known as curvature singularities.

 

[DennisN]

and just incase people reading this think in anti - relativity i am not.

Ok.

i just don't think that it should be used as a fact when the creator said himself that it had flaws.

But now you seem to be arguing against relativity in a way I do not understand. Do you think SR and GR should not be taught, or what's your point? Science is based on models. SR and GR are two very good models. The best models are used, until better models are available. On this forum mainstream models (and some emerging models like e.g. Loop Quantum Gravity & String Theory) are discussed/used here.

if he can say it has flaws i can't see how others can say now that it dont.

I don't know/remember everything Einstein said, we will need some references for that. Further, I have personally never heard anyone claiming that SR or GR are Theories of Everything. They are however very successful theories within their domain (1, 2, 3). I do not know/understand who/what you are arguing against. But you could start a thread about it and perhaps find out?

 

[Dale]

solarflare, all of that is nice, but none of it supports your claim

the creator said himself that it had flaws

Furthermore, that GR predicts singularities is not a flaw in GR. It is self consistent, and consistent with available evidence. This is all that we ask of theories that do not purport to be a theory of everything.