I respectfully would like to state that I believe the current understanding of the theory of relativity contains a mistake, albeit to me not that big of one. It concerns a logical fallacy which uses a Lorentz Transformation(LT) to state nothing can go faster than the speed of light. To really make it simple to understand what they based their “axiom” on is no more than an optical illusion similar to the way car’s wheel seems to move backwards when shown in movies. It is not entirely the same thing but basically the wheels are moving faster than the observer’s frames speed so they appear to be moving backwards. This is what they are saying when they use a Lorentz Transformation with fixed observation frame. In effect they are saying you could not have multiple revolutions per a given time span or multiple hertz. We all know this to be wrong. I blame Lorentz and it was his paper that used velocity instead of acceleration and he even uses the term “boost” in velocity which in the old days when I was taking college physics we called that acceleration. All examples of this LT show a static frame that doesn’t move forward in time. This is wrong.
To further my point I believe that the use of displacement mathematics in its application to define velocity is incorrect. I am not taking the credit for this just agreeing with web post “Velocity Addition Mystery Solved” by Joseph A. Rybczyk. (http://www.mrelativity.net/VBForum/showthread.php?247-Velocity-Addition-Mystery-Solved)
The use of displacement only makes sense for acceleration not a constant velocity. But this math is what current proponents of limiting objects to the speed of light fall back on.
It would make sense that since an accelerating body’s displacement would be a curve that you would need calculus to determine the displacement. But computing two object’s relative velocity within a time frame of both of them moving at the same “CONSTANT” velocity away from each other would not required anything more than simple math. If they are traveling at the same velocity, time is the same.
To date the error has been carried forward by what I think is Proof by Verbosity.
As Einstein stated “ALL OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS are the same for every inertial observer.” In particular,”The speed of light is the SAME for all inertial observers, regardless of the motion of the source.” “no physical experiment (mechanical, electromagnetic, optical—or any physical law whatsoever) can distinguish between a state of absolute rest and a state of constant velocity.” And the definition of inertia is for “Physics .a. the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.”
So light is a constant in “each” Minkowski World/Universal Line. If an Observer A from an inertial World line A was observing light from another moving World line B the light observed would always be viewed depending on no change in median as a constant. But no matter what velocity World Line B is traveling, light would be observed by an Observer IN World Line B the same as it would for an Observer viewing light from World line A. So if there are objects traveling at a relative constant velocity to earth near the speed of light, As long as the object is traveling at a constant velocity Observers on that object would experience light the same way as we do. So we really need to define the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum as a constant relates directly to its inertial World line. No speed limit just a physical constant of how light is observed in a specific World line. So the particles CERN accelerate are traveling at a constant velocity of 98% the speed of light and as a result they would be on their own World Line. If from our World Line we measured light generated from their collision it would and could not be faster than what we observe light to be. But since I state that solving for c in E=mc2 is an acceleration and not a velocity. The energy created could easily accelerate byproducts of the collision to speeds faster than what their constant velocity was at the point of impact. As stated earlier it is impossible to distinguish between a state of rest and a constant velocity.