Is Einstein's Theory of Relativity Flawed?

[A 15 year old]

My name is James Reinlie, I live in Central Florida. I'm 15 years old and I am very interested in Einsteins theory of Relativity.
But I feel that he has a flaw in his formulas. He states that no object can travel the speed of light besides light energy itself. But, if a object were to travel at .95 the speed of light through space, and a projectile were to be launched from this object at .06 the speed of light. Thus, accelerating the object to travel at 1.01 the speed of light. Which would, I believe, give it the ability to jump over dimples in space time. Which I believe is a quantem leap? if I am wrong please tell me. I believe that space time has dimples. There has to be changes in time, Picture space time as a giant graph, or volleyball net if you trow a ball into it . At the point of impact the grid would flex in, space time is said to have areas like this. If you were to travel fast enough, then you could jump across these dimples in space time.
http://img44.exs.cx/img44/8018/Space1.jpg
Please let me know if my theory has been proved before, I am very curious
and eager to know the answer.

 

[chroot]

Hello,

Welcome to physicsforums.com.

While I do not want to scare you off, I must warn you that you are violating our site guidelines by posting your personal theories about dimples in time. Please refrain from posting this sort of speculation in the future.

To answer your question about the 0.95c object expelling a 0.6c projectile: you are not adding velocities properly. Velocities do not add linearly in relativity like you're used to them adding.

Please see this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=39886

And this site:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel.html

- Warren

 

[A 15 year old]

I am sorry that I violated your forum policy. I did not understand. But can you please tell me why I cannot post this theory?


EDIT: Nevermind I read the sticky.

 

[check]

From Wikipedia

Quantum Leap
In physics, a quantum leap or quantum jump is a change of an electron within an atom from one energy state to the next. This is a discontinuous change in which the electron goes from one energy level to another without passing through any intermediate levels. This phenomenon contradicted expectations set by theories older than quantum mechanics that energy should always change continuously.

 

[A 15 year old]

I am not a mad scientist or anything, It was just a theory on time. I'm not challanging anyone or anything. Thanks for the info on the "Quantem Leap".

 

[chroot]

That's okay, A 15 year old -- you've caused no great harm. We just like to keep this forum about real science. Stick around, you'll probably learn a ton here.

- Warren

 

[A 15 year old]

Well, what do you call real science All real science was based on theories at one point. After all, I just might be right...Did'nt know you could'nt share your ideas. I feel like a scientist in the old days. Burned like a witch for contesting the general science. All fun though. I always felt that my intellectual level was higher then my fellow classmates. Just to let you know I scored 142 on the Mensa IQ test. I feel at home here already, I do intend to stick around and play sponge for a while.

 

[chroot]

Well, for starters, dimples in time and things going faster than light are not, in current understanding, real science.

- Warren

 

[The Bob]

A 15 year old, you say about Einstein being wrong but he can't be proven wrong properly until objects can travel faster than the speed of light, which we know is impossible because of Einstein's Law of Relativity. You are in a loop-hole here.

Oh and you are not the only young mad scientist around. I am only 16 and I am into Space-Time and Quantum Mechanics. The trouble is I understand even less than you. Hehe

Have fun here.

Post around.

The Bob (2004 ©)

P.S. I am in the guidelines to say that, right Chroot??

 

[A 15 year old]

I never said he was wrong, just that he had a flaw in his formulas. Nobody is perfect. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only young one around here.

 

[arildno]

He doesn't have a flaw in his formulas.
You've got a flaw in your thinking by assuming the Gallilean addition of velocities is valid in all cases. It is not. Period.

 

[HallsofIvy]

A 15 year old, you say about Einstein being wrong but he can't be proven wrong properly until objects can travel faster than the speed of light, which we know is impossible because of Einstein's Law of Relativity. You are in a loop-hole here.

OUCH! That's an even worse statement that "A 15 year old" gave!

You are the one who is in a loop hole. We don't "know" objects moving faster than light because of Einstein's theory (not "law") of relativity. We THINK that's true because there is plenty of experimental evidence for the theory but if someone COULD show such that would invalidate the theory.
I, for one, happen to believe that nothing can travel faster than light but, like any theory, the theory of relativity is not perfect and it is possible that we will eventually learn that it is completely wrong. Of course, whatever is true would still have to include length and time contraction since those have been shown to be true experimentally.

Before you assert that some thought experiment show that it can be violated, you better know exactly what the theory asserts (I'm now picking on "A 15 year old"): if You spaceship is moving at 95% the speed of light relative to a specific frame of reference (that's an important part of the statement) and the spaceship launches a "shuttle" at 95% the speed of light relative to the space ship then the speed of the shuttle relative to the specific frame of reference is (.95c+ .95c)/(1+ (.95c)(.95c)/c^{2)= (1.90c)/(1.9025)= 0.9986c, still less than the speed of light.}

 

[Alkatran]

According to relativity, each observer in a separate frame measures a different speed, time, position... etc etc. That means that 20 km/h to you may be 19.999999km/h to the guy walking next to you, and 0 km/h for the guy in the car. It's all very confusing at first, it was for me. But the main thing that helped me understand was a simple picture. Look here:
http://origins.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/paradox.html

 

[The Bob]

OUCH! That's an even worse statement that "A 15 year old" gave!

Can I ask how please.

You are the one who is in a loop hole. We don't "know" objects moving faster than light because of Einstein's theory (not "law") of relativity. We THINK that's true because there is plenty of experimental evidence for the theory but if someone COULD show such that would invalidate the theory.
I, for one, happen to believe that nothing can travel faster than light but, like any theory, the theory of relativity is not perfect and it is possible that we will eventually learn that it is completely wrong. Of course, whatever is true would still have to include length and time contraction since those have been shown to be true experimentally.

Sorry. I was useing the theory to say that as far as we know there is nothing with matter that can travel at the speed of light. I was saying that tehre is a loop-hole because unless we find something, that was not created by humans, then we can do nothing but believe the theory is accurate. This is because if we add more energy (as fuel or force) then we must increase the mass as a byproduct. As the mass increases we must increase the amount of 'fuel' to increase the speed further, which in turn means more mass etc...

I apologise for not knowing enough to make a well stated statement. I just thought I would have a go.

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[Alkatran]

What about this train of thought:

Let's say you "theoritcally" can reach and exceed the speed of light with less than an infinite amount of energy. What happens when you hit light speed? Your time STOPS (or goes infinitely fast, depends on your idea of time). As such, if you were to reach the speed of light, it would be difficult/impossible to change your speed since acceleration requires time.

Another point is that, technicly (TECHNICLY) you can exceed the speed of light. If you constantly accelerate for a few hundred years, then decelerate, you'll find that the time that passed for you compared to the distance you've traveled (as seen by your current frame) is much higher than c. The reason you never exceeded c is space was contracted when you were moving faster (relative to your current frame).

 

[A 15 year old]

The faster you travel, the less time goes by correct? This topic is becoming very interesting to hear your ideas and theories on time travel.

Cheers.

 

[Deeviant]

Wow the board sure did get a influx of new members here, always great to see new faces.

But for some reason I can't shake the feeling of deja vu.

 

[A 15 year old]

New members with new ideas, you might say.

 

[employee #416]

Yea, I'm aware of tachyons.

E= \pm mc^2

So, that is where they get tachyons from. Doesn't necessarily mean they should be considered theoretical. Although, neutrinos at one point were (still maybe) considered tachyons. I don't know though. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[employee #416]

Wow the board sure did get a influx of new members here, always great to see new faces.

But for some reason I can't shake the feeling of deja vu.

Isn't it great. New memebers are just as good as old members. Deja vu...Of what?

 

[russ_watters]

My suggestion A_15_year_old, is that you try to learn the existing theories and experimental evidence before striking out on your own. You could avoid a lot of spinning your wheels in place, developing ideas which we already know can't work.

If you stay, you'll find this site is an excellent place to learn about physics (and a lot of other sciences).

 

[bino]

i thought the speed of light was constant?

 

[employee #416]

In accordance to the currently accepted theory, yes, it is constant. Whether if that theory is right or wrong, I am not allowed to say.

 

[bino]

so if i were going the speed of light, the light would be faster still? since light will always be going that spee.d

 

[employee #416]

You are unable to go the speed of light. You can only go under the speed of light. No matter how fast you go (.9999999999999999c) you can never reach c.

 

[employee #416]

Theoretically, if you were to go c, time would stop. Light would be going the same speed as you. Time stops because light is unable to illuminate things before you, rather it does it at the same time.

 

[bino]

so then would it be dark?

 

[bino]

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992796

 

[employee #416]

That's a nice little article, but it may get you chewed out by certain people on this forum. I don't think these people are able to incorporate their findings. It's been two years since that article was written, and you do not see the data in use anywhere.

 

[employee #416]

No, it would not be dark. Light just illuminates everything at the same time, so nothing moves.