Albert Einstein theory

[sufeilsat1]

Hello...i'm new in this forum...but..i wanna ask about Albert einstein theory of relativity...is it true that AE theory has been prove not true??Can someone tell me the truth about this theory...Thank u..<br />

 

[nexium]

The Albert Einstien Theory of relativity is alive and well, but it has been chalanged by numerious experts. Alternative therories are less supported by observations at present, but that could change. Other posters will likely tell you about their favorite theory and give you links. Neil

 

[willpittenger]

Given what happened to Newton's laws, the two theories of relativity (General and Special) might become simple "less accurate." Einstein refined Newton's laws with relativity. We know know that much of Quantum theory conflicts with Einstein. String theory (or more accurately, M theory, but we don't know where the "M" came from) will, in my mind, succeed in merging Relativity with Quantum theory. String theory already has gone through stages where one version of the basic string theory turned out to be a mere "translation" of the others. Sort of like seeing several different copies of something only to find out that you were looking in mirrors. There was only one object.<br /><br />For more information, do what I did and read Brian Greene's book <i>The Elegant Universe</i> or watch the <i>Nova</i> episodes by the same name. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

General theory of relativity has passed all tests so far.All its observations have proved correct.The 1919 solar eclipse test of Eddington is a point.We can predict every movement of all astronomical things.It predicted black holes properties also.

 

[vogon13]

Atomic weapons still work.<br /><br />Pretty potent evidence Albert was correct. <br /><br /><br />I might be able to arrange a demonstration for all the skeptics out there. If you all would gather together way, way out in a desert some where, far from civilization . . .<br /><br /><br /><br />Don't bother with any sunblock.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[lukman]

Einstein Theory is very much relatively true untill now, perhaps the person who told you was from other dimension with different law of physics or that person lives in a black hole. All physics law, even einstein law wil be useless in a black hole. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[toothferry]

GPS works too. <br /><br />The orbiting atomic clock gps satellites are constantly being compared with ground based atomic clock stations.. to guage distances and precise locationing of the satellites, and without applying the affect of General Relativity to those orbiting atomic clocks, then we would contantly be misjudging where the satellites are, and those satellites would be relaying erroneous locations to the users gps receiver... We'd be off by miles without factoring in the science provided to us by Dr. Einstein!<br /><br />http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

 

[willpittenger]

What it has problems with are the very tiny. While it predicts some properties of black holes, it has problems telling us what the center is like. For small things, you could use Quantum theory, but it can't deal with massive (above the size of a subatomic particle) object like black hole. So how to do you investigate the core of a singularity? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Do you intend to steal a nuclear warhead? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[vogon13]

I don't have to steal them.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[ianke]

I'm out there. Now what? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[six_strings]

I wish I could recall the name, I still have it on tivo or dvd (I burn a lot of my tivo'd science programs to dvd) and can prolly check on it sometime this weekend. But, after they had a bunch of physicists speculating what the "m" represented, it was concluded it was<b> (m)ulti-verse</b>... I will check on which physicist made this conclusion or coined the term, so to speak <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> and get back to you... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wilgory]

i understood it represented membrane. the combined string theories. pure math speculation.

 

[six_strings]

I believe you may be correct, has been awhile since I saw the program... But, am going to look for it tonight, am curious now <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wilgory]

relativity has never failed to pass the tests man has been able to devise.<br />the latest i know of is Gravity Probe B.<br />the test is complete. the answers will be published soon.<br />possibly next month.<br />check the web sites of NASA and Stanford.<br /><br />you can't investigate the interior of a black hole.<br />not because the light can't escape.though that is a problem.<br />i believe black holes, dark matter, and dark energy are varying aspects of time, time cannot be fully understood by 3D beings.

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>relativity has never failed to pass the tests man has been able to devise.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Actually the experiments that established Quantum theory found a gap that Relativity could not cover. Tiny subatomic particles behave simply weird. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[wilgory]

quantum theory breaks down when trying to explain large scale physics.<br />does this mean quantum theory has failed?

 

[heyscottie]

Yes, it does. At least sort of. It means that QM is an incomplete theory, in the same way the GR is an incomplete theory. Neither can be usefully used to help explain everything. This means that they likely are both approximations of some unifying theory that will explain both the very vast and the infinitesimal. Until that theory matures, we will be "stuck" with what we have -- two incompatible theories that work wonderfully within their own realms.