Yes but special relativity says that what you're thinking is subjective is really objective. It says that OBJECTIVELY there can be no absolute simultaneity because of space-time. :/

Okay so you're going to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Its the only explanation that I can think of right now, I'm getting sleepy. The theory itself is realistically viable, yet not 100% correct, so what?

Recall that Einsteins theory is much larger than just special relativity, if anything its just a very minor detail that has been ironed out.

This post was edited by Jazz_Thing on Apr 8 2009 09:24pm

Bump.

The theories of general relativity and special relativity are mutually exclusive. The theory itself (special relativity) is NOT realistically viable and is not 100% correct. The baby should be thrown out with the bathwater if the baby shits in it.

I find your lack of faith in science disturbing. Furthermore, the fact is that the two theories are not mutually exclusive.

Special Relativity in Absolute Space 5

Taking into account our view of special relativity outline above, it was with enthusiasm
we read the proposal of Professor Michael Duffy for a book on the “Interpretations of
Space-Time Structure”. As a matter of fact, our work matched perfectly part of the topics
for reflection suggested by Michael Duffy. Furthermore, there is a clear convergence
between our proposal and Duffy’s own ideas [Duffy2004] in several important topics.
Regarding the original book proposal, our contribution is associated with the Poincaré-
Lorentz interpretation of the formal structure of relativity.

Following [Duffy2004], our analysis fits two categories of alternative, which are not mutually exclusive: on the one
hand, we do state “a preference for the Poincaré-Lorentz formulation as an alternative
interpretation of the relativistic formal structure with advantages of its own”, exploring an
alternative and complete Lorentz programme; on the other hand, we show as well that
“the Einstein formulations and the Lorentzian formulations are aspects of the same
theory”, explaining in detail “how a mathematical formal structure can be given different
physical interpretations depending on the concepts used”.

Hmm. http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0603/0603258.pdf

This post was edited by Jazz_Thing on Apr 9 2009 10:11pm

Bump.

One does not have to believe that mass is equal to energy to believe that mass (or in my belief, the proportional strong charge) warps space-time.

EDIT:

A photon has 0 mass. So lets use einstein's special relativity to see how much energy it has.

E=(0)c^2

E=0

Oh wow. It has zero energy. No doubt, relativists will come out swinging with arguments that it has "relativistic mass" which is somehow different from "rest mass".

This post was edited by AEtheric on Jul 4 2009 01:05am

go talk to bovinedesi

someone obviously doesn't understand how statics and dynamics plays a role in relativity

special relativity is simply general relativity with certain bounds -- to be more specific, special relativity is general relativity in non-accelerated reference frames.

Yes, that's another reason why it assumes the speed of light is constant and cannot be passed, right? Even if the quantum entanglement is not absolutely simultaneous, i.e. it has a velocity that the transference of information occurs at, its transference of information must be faster than the speed of light.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Jul 4 2009 09:01am