>Hi Hilmar,
>
>This is all theoretical since no one has proved the theory.

The Theory of Relativity (both the Special and the General) are usually considered to be accurate descriptions of reality, and well-proven. There are still some conflicts with Quantum Theory, though - scientists are trying to find a general theory, that encompasses both (sometimes called "The Theory of Everything").

The proof of the Special Theory of Relativity (1905) includes:

The negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. This was before the Theory of Relativity was published; supposedly, Einstein hadn't heard about it. (This is related to the fact that the speed of light is always the same, even for different observers that move at different speeds.)

While we humans can't move close to the speed of light, fast-moving particles, like muons, can approach it. These particles decay, on the average, in a certain time; when moving at high speeds, their average lifetime is longer.

Measurements with very accurate clocks, moving in planes.

And for the Special Theory of Relativity (1915), the following proofs are often cited:

The movement of Mercury's perihelion. At one time, anomalies in Mercury's orbit made scientists believe that a yet-to-be-discovered planet, called "Vulcan", orbited the Sun, closer than Mercury. The explanation by the General Theory of Relativity made this (never discovered) planet unnecessary.

The gravitational pull of the Sun (and other massive objects) on rays of light, as predicted by the Special Theory of Relativity, has been observed time and again. A star close by the Sun (angular distance) seems to be in a slightly different position than it really is. "Gravitational lenses" by the gravitation of far-away galaxies have been observed.

>It seem quite illogical to me that speed would effect the reality of the universe, or time; although, I can understand how the speed of an object could distort our perceptions of the universe, and make the universe appear very different than it really is. This is the limitation of using light as an absolute upper range to everything. light is very inadequate in preceiving a universe that is vastly infinite.

Light seems to be the upper speed-limit. It doesn't have to be light; it can be anything that moves at the speed-limit...

There is, as yet, no evidence that anything can move faster than light. Scientists are exploring the possibility; but nothing has been found yet.

>So far as the theoritical equation, I do not understand it, but I think it is flawed based on common sense. If speed effect time, it would be nice if someone proved it, and then was able to explain it to use in way that could be easily understood.

Many people find the Theory of Relativity, and some aspects of Quantum Theory, contrary to common sense. The problem is that my imagining that something should be so-and-so really is no proof that this really is so.

Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)