I don't know about you, but science had 100 years to disprove Einstein, and it didn't happen
So I like this:
Faster than Light (http://toph.synthasite.com)
Srdjan introduces a postulate that 'Change in clock speed of a moving object is ... proportional to probability that time can be measured equally in all frames of reference...'
I like the analogy with Heisenberg (see link above)
To make the long story short, everything near Earth (or very large masses for that matter) experiences relativistic effects. Also anything that's really small does too. Light can't go faster either.
This is why all experiments we ever did WORKED!! But theory says if we move away from earth, it should not be so!
But more massive objects far from large bodies can go faster than light, and all they need is to have more thrust.
Far away galaxies may not just APPEAR to move faster than light, they may ACTUALLY move faster than light, and this is very neatly explained...
There is much info on web site, I looked at some classic relativistic issues such as spaceship passing by, time travel paradox, doppler effect, magnetism...
Not only that, but relativistic effect is not symmetrical: smaller masses are affected more, while larger masses are affected less.
I am excited about this, because this is the VERY first theory I saw that doesn't try to find a flaw in Einstein equations, which have been tested for 100 or so years.
Rather it gives a postulate, which just makes velocity v in famous (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2 smaller - because it says that two frames of reference are only equal if MEASURING TIME IN BOTH FRAMES HAS EQUAL PROBABILITY
I like this a lot
