Some problems with light speed barrier.

Chroot,

I am glad that we now seem to be able to communicate. I am not disagreeing with what you have said but only add that it is but one interpretation. If, as I stated, you use a closed system, the computer jwould calculate the velocity as v = > c and that the arrival was infact due to FTL.

I actually question the observtional limit imposed by Relativity along the gamma function in that it has not actually been observed and is only conjectured. There are observations that suggest these observations are due to other possible causes and the whole concept is invalid as a system (not inconsistant mathematically)

For example if you set two bowling balls a fixed distance apart in space and then time their closure rate, assume 1 hour, and then accelerate them on parallel paths, you claim they increase in mass but their closure rate does not change. That suggests that their mass doesn't actually change but instead the "apparent " increase in mass is in reality a decrease in energy transfer efficiency. It is the same observation but also explains why this apparent increase in mass doesn't change the gravity of the spheres. (I understand that moving at the same speed on parallel paths means they have no relative velocity to each other but that also means your view of increased mass is a perception and not real).

I see simular problems with the overall systemmatic view of relativity, not that it may not be mathematically correct in many cases but the mathematics do not properly interprete the cause and being unrestrained by a physical cause model lead to false conclusions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MacM,

But, what phsyics? Newtonian? How do you now Newtonian physics is correct for such circumstances?

It seem that you would sit back on your sweet captain chair, doing some simple calculation. You probably have a bathroom balance that shows you the weight of a kilogram mass as exactly 9.8 N, thus indicating that your ship has acceleration of 1 g. You also have a clock callibrated to earth clock prior to your launching. After exactly a year (365 days) in your reference frame, this is your estimate for the ship velocity relative to earth:

v = at = 9.8 x 365 x 24 x 3600 = 309,052,800 m/s, wow, exceeds the speed of light!

How do you know that your clock run at the same speed as clock on earth when your ship moving relative to earth? Experiment showed that moving clock does tick at slower rate. Simply do not look back to earth while your ship fly away doesn't change that fact. Therefore, how do you know that you still can use t as the above for estimating your ship relative velocity to earth.

You forget that you are trying to compute your ship velocity relative to earth. When you estimate your ship has velocity 309,052,800 m/s relative to earth, an observer on earth would find that your ship velocity is not more than the speed of light. This is because earth observer would find that your ship accelerates at rate that keep decreasing and your elapse time is more than 1 year. Will you say that your estimation using v = at is the correct one?

MacM, you assured us that you understand relativity, but I think someone who really does would not dismiss experimental results that supports time dilation or claimed that Newtonian mechanics is correct for object moving at high speed. Are you pretending not knowing relativity and particularly that in physics things are interconnected? You can't say "I accept this but not that of relativity" while those 'this' and 'that' interconnected. In physics that I know, one has to accept thing (experimental result, etc.) whether he likes it or not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pete,

No. The observer sees something entirely different as chroot has stated. (according to Relativity). In that view it is argued that the ship would appear to decrease its acceleration, never reaching v = c.

Not to get to far off course and start another UniKEF discussion here but briefly, I too see length contraction. I do not believe in mass change or time dilation.

I'll show my work so if I screw up it will be apparent. Also we aren't going to agree but then that is the purpose of this discertation is to try and reconcile our understandings of each others view.

v = a * t; v = c = 3E8 m/s; a = 1E5 m/sec^2 or t = v/a = 3E8/1E5 = 3,000 seconds.

Probably not. My time is based on the pilots view. and F=ma.

The simple answer is d = a*t^2/2 or 4.5E11 m. But that is not true in Relativity nor UniKEF. Distance in UniKEF is based on an energy seperation (quantitative) and varies by the relative energy level between points (qualitative). The distance (quantitative seperation) can be reduced to "zero" by instaneous increase of qualitative energy differential (relative velocity). It is very much simular to relativity in function but different in principle or cause. In UniKEF the dimensions of a bowling ball will change at a different rate the the fabric of space due to a term called "q", so I am not in a position to completely answer your question.

With difficulty. Distance being a function of quanititative energy seperation maeans the distance between A.C. and earth is only 4.3 ly for a photon traveling at v = c, for a bowling ball it is substantially less because the attentuation of the energy flow in the production of gravity.

While this sounds overly complicated it is actually nothing more than a physical understanding of "Curved" time-space in Relativity. "Distance is variable" d = v * t is only valid for the observer and the observed. This may well be why all four deep space craft now appear to be slowing down from our perspective. We are seeing a different distance than they are experiencing. To them they would be going at a different speed by traversing more distance than we see. They are now out of our gravitational enfluence and distance is changing.

Probably not but the disatance may in fact be the same, I just can't give a good distance answer right now.

Can't answer that question at this time. There are testing that can be done to determine "q", etc and it could then be mathemmatically concluded. But I can say that the distance is not the same as the initial distance minus distance traveled. Space will have infact decreased distance due to the relative veolcity.

We might but I have no way of knowing since I cannot give you that distance at this time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paul T,

Because they are the ones that describe the physics of the self-propelled rocket where there is no relative velocity between the fuel and the rocket. The fuel consuption rate, according to the pilots watch is going to continue to produce a given F from F = ma.

That seems like a correct description.

Because it is the local physics of the inertial system. What an earthling sees or another rocket pilot approaching at v = .9c sees has nothing to do with my physics. Those are observational perceptions, not linked to my rockets performance.

You are not entirely correct here. I am not linking my velocity to any particular observer. It is a change in velocity due to the measured F = ma computation by my watch that describes my physics. Now if your initial velocity was equal to earths, then yes an earthling would see your performance as entirely different but again that is the observers view, not the rockets physics.

I do not dismiss the experimental results perse. I do challenge the interpretation of such data. For example the increased energy required to accelerate a body does not mean its mass has increased. The energy transfer efficiency may have decreased and that view explains why one does not see gravitational affects of the "apparent mass increase" because it isn't there. There has been no experiment that actually shows time even exists. No clock measures time. It measures a process and process can be altered by external enfluences. I don't believe in time perse. It is a property of a dynamic or energetic space and not a 4th dimension. So I do understand the claims of Relativity but I simply reject some of them because they have alternative explanations.

I am having a hard time interpreting what you have said here but I agree we must accept data as we get it but I also say that we are to quick to assign an interpretation to that data that fits a preconcieved idea and fail to consider other explanations for the data. In that regard data and the mathematics of Relativity are substantially valid but the interpretation of what it means is flawed and that is producing some mathematical projections (which have never been tested) that simply are not yet justified.

 

James R.,

I am going to answer you but then I think this subject should be dropped or I will be accused of hijacking another thread.

We agree that there can be no specific velocity without a reference. But in this case the reference is "Vo" and you are computing your velocity relative to your initial starting velocity (whatever it might have been relative to trillions of other objects and velocities). Unless you choose to deny physics of F = ma, v = at, d = at^2/2, etc then you must conclude your velocity after a given amount of time by your watch and under measured forces of acceleration is a given amount relative to where you started. That is the physics of the independant inertial system, not what other observers view..

That seems an accurate statement. F = ma, v = at are the principle considerations by the pilot measuring his performance. And by computation he will conclude he has surpassed v = c and indeed will arrive at some remote location in a time that substantiates his view that his average velocity was greater than v = c.

That was my meaning. For it is what the pilot measuress and feels in terms of F and by his watch which dictate his view of physics. I think you would agree that excluding the outside observer his physics will be the same as they would on earth. That is F=ma and v = at, etc do not change for the rocketship in an isolated view.

Actually I have a far more sensiable view in that I can conclude my trip using my own watch and computed velocity and not concern myself what all the different observers are concluding since each will have a different perspective of my performance.

Simple answer but not very well supported.

And it should since F=ma is still F=ma and v = at is still v = at for the rocket regardless of what observers outside the physical activity percieve.

NAme one and give a source. I'll wager that it doesn't actually prove what you claim.

I have seen no such proofs. I have seen only statements advocating the correctness of Relativity.

I think I have made my point you have no such proof. It is still conjecture based on the assumption of the validity of Relativity, no evidence what-so-ever. So resorting to the "Garbage Statement" is a sound fall back position but is unsupported in the final analysis.

Valid point but only puts us on an even keel since observations that we do have tend to support my view over Relativity. The old FTL issue all over again. Your "Illusion Solution" is only valid in about 1 % of such observations. That fact that we observe objects moving v > c but not relative toward us and do not see objects actually going v > c at us (once adjusted for the "Illusion Solution" suggests infact that I am correct and Relativity may be wrong.

Since the only way to have FTL is to induce it via a self-propelled system it is unlikely that a direct test can be made any time soon. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

I have no problem with counter-intuitive, I do have a problem where Relativity makes mathematical projections and imposes limits when there are alternative explanations for certain data and no actual observation or data to support the claims.

 

MacM,

I agree that Newtonian mechanics is just fine for condition in the ship that has acceleration not so great and this continue to be true disregard the velocity of the ship relative to earth. However, you keep forgetting that you want to estimate the velocity of your ship relative to earth. This result that you agreed:

v = at = 9.8 x 365 x 24 x 3600 = 309,052,800 m/s, wow, exceeds the speed of light!

is the velocity of your ship relative to earth. It is not a velocity relative to other reference frame. You cannot disregard your origin (that is earth), including the variation of your clock running rate compared to those on earth. Things change in your rocket, not from your own point of view, but yes relative to earth. Because of this change, the above velocity of 309,052,800 m/s become incorrect. Do you see the logic of the incorrectness?

How the clock running in another ship or what the other captain think about your ship velocity is not important. But, earth reference frame is important to you in this respect, because that is where your ship originated; your clock is callibrated to earth's clock, not to any other alien's world or ship clocks.

if you don't link your estimated ship velocity with other reference frame (event in your imagination), your velocity 309,052,800 m/s has no meaning! Can you tell me relative to what this velocity really is? It should'nt be just an arbitrary velocity relative to nothing, but it is supposed to be velocity relative to earth. Correct or incorrect?

This is the problem. You accept relativity half-heartedly. Relativity (SR, to be exact) rooted on two postulates. This makes the theory simple and elegant. Now, you accept a few results that pleased you but reject a few others as you think they should be explained using different postulate or whatever. Then, you (or others, as you don't seem to aware) would find that one thing contradicts the other. This your version of relativity is far from elegant as it is not self-consistent, and...well wrong!

 

Paul T,

I'm moving my response over to the UniKEF Analysis thread so as to not further side track this thread.

 

quote:
"is the velocity of your ship relative to earth. It is not a velocity relative to other reference frame. You cannot disregard your origin (that is earth), including the variation of your clock running rate compared to those on earth. Things change in your rocket, not from your own point of view, but yes relative to earth. Because of this change, the above velocity of 309,052,800 m/s become incorrect. Do you see the logic of the incorrectness?"
================================================================

If I am the captain of the ship, why would I want to reference earth time for my
calculations? They would be incorrect for me. If my velocity is sufficient, I can travel
100 light years in 6 months. I would age 6 months and my clock would read 6 months.
If I used earth's time, it would indicate I aged over 100 years, which is incorrect for
me. I would calculate my velocity by MY clock. My clock would not be callibrated to
earth time any longer.

 

Next time you quote a post I deleted, be also sure to quote everything: there was a lot more material in there, including the quotes of where you contradict yourself in this thread. Then it would have been clear that indeed, you did not understand what was being explained to you.

Very convenient to leave that out, because that fits nicely into your "the established SR community does not like me" image.

I decided to delete that post immediatelly after posting it because I knew it would derail the thread in a "SR for dummies" and "Why is SR valid" thread.

 

If the acceleration is indeed going to become ineffective at speed of light then this ineffectiveness should be visible even at lesser speeds i.e. at constant acceleration after every thousand miles per hour increase in speed, the next thousand should need more energy to be achieved.

If a ship has a constant acceleration of 1000 miles/hour then how long will it take the break light speed ? This wont work only if constant acceleration was figment of imagination.

At near speed of light the matter that the ship is thrusting out to gain speed has also increased in mass hence the thrust should give opposite reaction accordingly to the mass ejected in the opposite direction. And yes the matter thrusted in opposite direction will always be slower than speed of the ship so what if I can throw matter at near speed of light ?.


Speed of G ? - - - > http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34490

 

James R, I would think you have read some of the particle accelerator research that is
newer than the 20-30 year old articles you referenced as proof of the 'c' limit. The
tachyon neutrino is being considered at least by some HEP physicists. Here is one
paper with a hypothesis they may exist and be detectable:

result, tachyons may travel in a 3-dimension time while
moving in an unique space direction. A very severe problem
is that no tachyon was ever observed in an experiment.
On the other hand, neutrinos are an exception
with the following appearances of tachyon properties:
- There is a very high symmetry between neutrinos and
space-like leptons which is enhanced in the electro-weak
unication;
- Each neutrino has its unique space direction, left or
right, described by a denite helicity;
- Neutrinos never stop in a space position, similarly
as a space-like particle can never stop in a moment of
time-evolution.
A big challenge is the fact that all neutrinos seem to
have very small mass, which disturbs the lepton-neutrino
symmetry. To solve this problem we assumed in Ref. [7]
that neutrinos are realistic tachyons, however due to
weak interaction their transcendent masses m being complex
have to be strongly suppressed. We suggested that
the real part of mass is roughly equal to "
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0002/0002124.pdf

I will look for another paper I read once with regard to a more powerful particle
accelerator that is theorized to be able to detect tachyon neutrinos, if they exist.
They are one of the particles they will be searching for. I remember the accelerator
is supposed to be operational in 2006 or 2007, with much higher energies than the
2 TeV produced at Fermilab. They are supposed to try to create micro black holes, also.

 

Another paper supporting tachyon neutrinos, there are plenty around, of course.
"Based on experimental evidences supporting the hypothesis that
neutrinos might be tachyonic fermions, a new Dirac-type equation is
proposed and a spin- 1
2 tachyonic quantum theory is developed. The
new Dirac-type equation provides a solution for the puzzle of negative
mass-square of neutrinos. This equation can be written in two
spinor equations coupled together via nonzero mass while respecting
the maximum parity violation, and it reduces to one Weyl equation in
the massless limit. Some peculiar features of tachyonic neutrino are
discussed in this theoretical framework."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0011/0011087.pdf

 

Hehe, I'll tell you why you need to compute your ship speed relative to earth. You know that your ship velocity would exceed most of the planets or stars speed. You certainly in your mission to another star located, say, 10 ly away from earth. That 10 ly distance is more or less the same and you could assume that earth and your destination star as well as the seperating distance are in a 'at rest' reference frame or earth reference frame. Hence, if you know how fast your ship move relative to earth, you would be able to determine how long your travel time is.

Since for a ship with constant acceleration of 1 g velocity in axcess of c would be achieved in about a year, you would travel the 10 ly in more a less velocity of c (according to SR, as your speed cannot exceed c). It would take about 10 years plus for you to reach your destination, according to observer on earth and less accoding to you in the ship due to the time dilation.

 

quote:
"If you want to calculate your velocity using your clock, you'd better use your own rulers, too, rather than stealing Earth's rulers. If you do that, you'll calculate your speed to be less than the speed of light, always."
=======================================================

Except when I step back onto the surface of the earth again. I will look at the star
I went to, measure it to be 50 light years away, look at MY clock and conclude I
made the round trip in 6 months. For me, I will conclude I made the 100 light year
round trip in 6 months, 200 times the speed of light. According to SR, the earth-based
observer will conclude I was gone for over 100 years, but I only aged 6 months, while
the earth aged over 100 years. Wouldn't the frames still be mixed, my frame 6 months,
the earth's frame 100 years? And during my trip, SR states I will physically contract
the earth and the star closer together while travelling at relativistic velocities. Would
I see the earth getting closer to my tail as I accelerated closer to 'c' away from it?
High enough speed, and the earth should be right on my back bumper. Does this sound
logical to you? Sorry, it doesn't to me and I have seen no PROOFS of SR, only inferences that could possibly be explained a different way. I do not say SR is wrong,
but I do not see enough evidence (extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs)
to convince me that time dilation and length contraction are real physical effects
rather than an illusionary preception by the stationary observer.

 

James R.,

OK, I have no problem with that but I did already transfer my one response to Paul T to the UniKEF Thread.. As long as you say this is on topic then I am fine with it here. I'm just trying to avoid historical complaints about hijacking. And I will necessarily be referring to some UniKEF concepts in the process.

Vo is inherent when you disregard external references. It is always "zero" and is the starting point based on ones watch.

Not really. You are mixing d as a computed distance with d as a measured distance. A computed distance is a matter of d = at^2/2 and can be computed from the Vo starting point as a reference. We do not need to know where in the universe Vo was. We are computing delta d, just as we are computing delta v, all based on physical measurements taken by our onboard instruments and by our on board clock which are the ones involved in the rockets physics.

I am not and have not argued against the fact that observers see things differently. My arguement is that you give the wrong reference when assessing the rockets physics. It isn't what one or any number of external observers see that defines the rockets physics, it is the rockets own sensors and clocks that determine the rockets performance.

This is an invalid statement. You must remember that in your case I, the pilot, was also an earth observer and so the frame from earths perspsective is the same one I start with in my rocket analysis. I have not mixed frames, I simplyshare a common frame at the start.

The frames are not mixed they are the same value in both cases and Contraction must be accounted for in both cases. Have your pilot adjust distance based on a contraction rate. The problem here is Relativity contracts space at a rate which precludes the v = > c conclusion. It appears to be to exagerated. That is space doesn't contract to "zero" at v=c. This is caused by the inclusion of time dilation in the calculation. Just as for the photon we see it require 4.3 year to travel from earth to A.C.

******* Extract from UniKEF Gravity regarding time-space (distance) *********

((((The Fig will not cut and paste here. Goto http://www.paygency.com/ and click on Page 4 then got down to Fig 14))))

In UniKEF space itself is created by presence of energy flow, time is an illusion caused by the change that energy flow induces in matter causing events and a Dynamic Present comprised of all Past events. Each observer therefore has a unique instant in time for which no other observer may share. It may be seen that movement in any direction shifts the sequence that past events are received as instants of a dynamic present and hence as one moves they simultaneously enter the future and past in terms of events that comprise a dynamic present of their original origin.

Distance in a UniKEF universe is a function of energy density of space. That energy density varies with attenuation in the production of gravity and hence we live in a Variable Distance universe.

Because a Bowling Ball and a Ping Pong Ball have different gravities to a common Golf Ball even though as outside observers we see the configuration of Fig 14 as being an Isosceles Triangle and the distance between them as equal, they experience a different distance.

This is not as strange as it might first appear and in fact is merely another way of looking at the meaning of curved time-space of Relativity. Gravity by Relativity's GR warps or curves time-space and so does UniKEF.

The "Variable Distance" understanding of Relativity's Curved time-space has significant impact on how we should view our universe. It means for example that the distance between Earth and Alpha Centuri is only 4.3 light years for a photon traveling at v = c and that for a bowling ball the distance would be substantially less. Due to UniKEF's "q" term. "q" is a measure of mass affect on the UniKEF.

It means distance as observed from Earth is less than distance to the same point in space when observed from deep space out of the gravity affects of the Earth or Solar system. It means deep space probes should appear to be slowing down without explanation as though something were pulling them back.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE OBSERVE:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1332368.stm


As of this writing, May, 2004, this issue remains unresolved after decades of analysis.

This does complicate matters substantially since d = v * t is INVALID (distance equals velocity times time is no longer valid). d = v * t is now only valid between the observer and the observed and not to third party onlookers. It is however unavoidable in a curved time-space universe.

***********************************************

So to discuss distance as viewed from earth and/or a rocket in space is more complex than your solution actually allows for and leads to incorrect conclusions. Distance is actually a "Quantity" of space energy (Called time-enery units in UniKEF or teu). The quanititative energy seperation (QES) is what one would refer to as distance and as shown observers are not going to agree on such distance in that it is also affected by their respective gravities. To complicate matters further the seperation is affected by the "Qualitative" energy differential (QED) (or relative velocity). That is to say when QES = QED then QES-QED = zero. The contraction factor is not the same as in Relativity. So we are going to get different results as to the contraction of space with velocity. It actually makes far more sense than a system that treats all dimensions as contracting to "zero" at a common v = c limit. Here d = 0 at different different velocites as a function of the "at rest" QES in teu. It goes very much to the concept of tunneling and electron orbit jumping at atomic and sub-atomic scales and seperations in teu. To me it is elegant but to you I'm sure it is not. But that really is not the point. The point is which view resolves or produces the best fit answers to observation. Frankly there are situations where the UniKEF view seems more consistant, as we will get into below.

This is only elegant if you have a predetermined desired output for your calculation. That doesn't make it correct. And to believe the the enitre universe wraps around your ears with "zero" dimension at v = c, is not elegant, it is ludricrus. It treats all distance with the same "Zero" result at a common v. UniKEF contracts space as a function of the at rest spatial dimension. In that regard it becomes far easier for an electron to jump from one location to another (without existing in our view) inbetween locations be ause the energy required to collapse the QES seperation is far less. To collapse the universe to "zero" requires on the other hand incalcuable energy.

I disagree with the overall statement. While I recognize that at any given instant one cannot measure velocity r acceleration in the form of distance/t^2, we have indicatotors such as the force of acceleration which can be used to compute rae of velocity change. This concept very much links back to the gravity and variable distance issue and that of the "Equivelence Principle".

We can agree on most of this, excluding clocks and as to magnitude of the contraction change.

Only as long as you hang on to the basic elements of your Relativity theory which includes time, mass and dimensional change as stated in your mathematics. You have to throw out those concepts and base your universe on an energy density time-space.

I cannot comment on these at this time since they are not active links which I can go look at. But believe it or not should such tet data actually support their conclusion (devoid of alternative explanations) then I will accpt those aspects and they actually do nothing more than refine parameters which can be applied to UniKEF as well.

I would be interested to see your referenced jpaper and to see which paper is the more current. IT WAS NOT MY 1%. It was the conclusion of the study I referenced.

******* Extract from UniKEF Paper ***********

I have found another paper which I think deals with this issue more extensively than anyother I have seen. It addresses a multitude of considerations and data over several pages.

The following are extracts from that paper.

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Kellermann/Kell6_3.html

“ Attempts to understand the superluminal motion have produced a flurry of imaginative phenomenological interpretations including

(a) real tachyonic motion;

(b) grossly incorrect Hubble constant or non-cosmological red shifts (Kellermann & Shaffer 1977, Burbidge 1978) or incorrect cosmological model (Segal 1979);

(c) light echoes (Lynden-Bell 1977, Lynden-Bell & Liller 1978);

(d) gravitational lenses and screens (Barnothy & Barnothy 1971, Chitre & Narlikar 1980);

(e) systematic variations in synchrotron opacity (Epstein & Geller (1977);

(f) synchrotron or curvature radiation from electrons gyrating in a fixed dipole field (Milgrom & Bahcall 1978, Sanders & Da Costa 1978, Bachall & Milgrom 1980);

(g) various kinematic illusions caused by the finite signal propagation time (Rees 1966, 1967, Cavaliere et al. 1971). ”


"g" above is the "Illusion" solution. While they give it the best evaluation they also give considerable objections to it.


“ (c) To produce the observed superluminal motion, the motion must be closely aligned with a narrow cone along the line of sight which has an a priori probability of 1 percent (1/2); yet about half of all compact sources show evidence for superluminal motion, either from the VLBI observations or, less directly, but for a much larger sample, from the flux density variations. ”


Note:In the quote above there is a gamma symbol after the (1/2 Gamma) but it didn't cut and paste.

“ It is unlikely that this effect can be important in normal quasars, as the line and continuum intensities are typically comparable, and there is no evidence that the line emission in quasars contains a significant blue shift. ”


It appears that the "Illusion" and several other approaches can answer some observations but it also appears that the issue is far from a slam dunk for Relativity. The highly tauted "Illusion Solution" is deemed valid in less than 1 % of FTL observations.

It appears this issue about blue shift which I raised is in fact a major concern.

We see nothing that computes as actually moving v = > c relative to us, we do see objects not moving relative to us with velocities of v = >c that no known explanation yet has been found. The "Illusion Solution" be it 1% or 25 % doesn't do the job.

Actually I have but you choose to ignore the basis. You also disregard observation which by your own admission suggests 3/1 that such motion is actually being observed.

I will see if I can retrieve some of these papers but until I do I cannot comment on your claim that they prove anything. Just as you once claimed ALL FTL motion was resolved by the "Illusion Solution". So in the intrim tell me why we should ignore our observations rather than assume there needs to be some changes in the basic principle Relativity advocates. Get back to me

 

The universe is not obligated to behave in a manner that "sounds logical" to you.

Do you accept that E=mc²? Is the energy created by the mutual anihilation of a positron and electron a real physical effect, or is it just an illusionary perception by the observer?

For E=mc² is derived from length contraction and time dilation, if they are not "real physical effects" then neither is matter to energy conversion.