Could Einstein be wrong?

[falkor]

Could Einstein's relativity equations work for a different model of gravity without space and time having to be warped? I mean, Newton's equations worked pretty well, but he didn't think the fabric of space and time became warped; this idea sounds like science fiction.<br /><br />Does time really slow down at the speed of light? Has this really been proven?<br /><br />Why does Time and Space have to begin at the big bang? Why can't they be infinite and independent? It seems logical to me that a supermassive black hole became so condensed that it exploded to form our part of the universe, and that this occurs in many cycles.<br /><br />It seems most forces of nature have been unified--except gravity--perhaps because the warped space-time model is wrong? If gravity represents something so bizarre as warped space-time then it doesn't sound like something that can be unified with anything else. Newton's model of mass attracting mass would have more chance of being unified.<br /><br />The fact that quantum mechanics is random, ie. radioactive decay, could have something to do with a logical pattern occuring within the underlying quarks that is producing what is seen to be random events on the atomic level. Ask yourself how does a random number generator work on a logical computer?<br /><br />I'm not claiming to be the next Einstein, but I think science is starting to become silly. Anyone whose done any research knows that Global Warming isn't caused by CO2.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Time slows down when you accelerate, this has been proved by putting atomic clocks on airplanes and flying them around the world, then comparing them to another atomic clock that didn't move.<br /><br />Time slows down when you are subject to gravity, as has been proved by GPS satellites requiring adjustments to their clocks to keep them accurate when compared to clocks on Earth.<br /><br />Both are proofs of relativity.<br /><br />Also, particle accelerators like CERN are a constantly testing relativity, and their results seem to confirm it.<br /><br />We have been testing relativity for the past 100 years, and it is definitely a more accurate theory than Newtons was. Newton falls to pieces in a particle accelerator, whereas Einstein works perfectly! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[falkor]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Time slows down when you accelerate, this has been proved by putting atomic clocks on airplanes and flying them around the world, then comparing them to another atomic clock that didn't move. <br /><br />Time slows down when you are subject to gravity, as has been proved by GPS satellites requiring adjustments to their clocks to keep them accurate when compared to clocks on Earth. <br /><br />Both are proofs of relativity.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Not necessarily; the first experiment could imply that clocks work more efficiently when stationary. <br /><br />When radiation travels from one place to another, at the speed of light, is there any way of measuring whether any of it's properties have changed?

 

[SpeedFreek]

<i>"When radiation travels from one place to another, at the speed of light, is there any way of measuring whether any of it's properties have changed?"</i><br /><br />Well in the case of light, spectroscopy is one method.<br /><br />As for your comments about a clocks efficiency, what do you mean? We are talking about atomic clocks here, not clockwork ones.... and the lack of "efficiency" just happens to be the amount predicted by Einstein! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[falkor]

If Einstein is right then any physical features of the photons--if there are any--should remain identical from the moment they leave place A to the moment they arrive at place B. There must be some better experiments to test out this theory... <br /><br />The clock's change in time could be plotted against it's constant speed around the earth; instead of 1 flight, I would devise an experiment involving 3 flights at different speeds over the same distance.

 

[falkor]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>and the lack of "efficiency" just happens to be the amount predicted by Einstein!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />It's just occurred to me that the speed of the airplane cannot remain constant over the course of it's journey, so if the result matched what Einstein's equations predicted then they must be wrong. Take-off/landing speed/altitude must also be taken into consideration, so the fact his predictions were accurate sounds like a fabrication. What is the source of this airplane/clock experiment? Did it even take place? Was every factor of the plane's speed/altitude over the course of it's entire journey taken into account?

 

[SpeedFreek]

Hafele and Keating Experiment <br /><br /> wiki article <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[adrenalynn]

>> Take-off/landing speed/altitude must also be taken into consideration<br /><br />Umm - I'm guessing that that's not the first time that's been considered.<br /><br />You do realize, of course, that the exact time over course for any given point in time can be measured and plotted, right?<br /><br />You're going to have to dig a LOT harder than that to try to discredit relativity. You're not even swinging in the kiddie tetherball leagues here when compared to the real experimenting that has been done over the last 100+ years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"You're going to have to dig a LOT harder than that to try to discredit relativity. You're not even swinging in the kiddie tetherball leagues here when compared to the real experimenting that has been done over the last 100+ years."<br />---<br /><br />yeah, you got that right, sign of noobness is questioning no more or less than Einstein and apparently that is the only name the miserable reptile knows LOL<br /><br />it doesn't behoove to young ones with milk still not dried on their chins to question their iconic elders<br /><br />this is meant jokingly, no hard feeling, btw the term miserable reptile was once employed by Newton and I just love that <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[adrenalynn]

I know you're teasing, but I don't personally have any problem with someone questioning Einstein's work(s). I do think, though, that one would need to do better than brutal-obvious. Some of the very brightest minds of all time have gnashed their teeth against these works for their entire lives only to fail repeatedly, and fail in the end. If it were easy, someone in the last hundred years would have already eaten his lunch.<br /><br />Beyond that, I'd personally do my homework before I started typing. But then, that's just me... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Einsteins theory is firmly established,is infallible.

 

[falkor]

http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/disproof.html

 

[larper]

That paper is so full of errors as to be laughable. Thanks. It's been a long week and I needed a good laugh. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"I don't personally have any problem with someone questioning Einstein's work(s)."<br />--<br /><br />neither do I, its just that it behooves one to start questioning after he has at least phys101 behind his belt<br /><br />I suppose it can happen in principle that somebody walks into his class and asks question of his teacher that will stump him and make revolution like overthrowing Einstein's theories but we all know that doesn't happen, instead the smart alecks only show they didn't do their homework <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />only people who 'do their homework' before coming to ask on forums ever have chance to overthrow Einstein (or anybody or anything else for that matter), those who don't do their homework come here like into a pub to have easy chat and very likely will never overthrow even their parents ideas LOL<br /><br />I don't think Einstein will be found wrong, more likely just reinterpreted like he reinterpreted Newton's idea of gravitational force being curvature of space, you just can't make the results of his theories wrong, perhaps correct them a little somewhere (but I know nothing of that I hasten to add) but they could be reinterpreted and in that way corrected also while nothing would be changed in the way of the predictions his theories make<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ashish27]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Einsteins theory is firmly established,is infallible. <br /><br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />not true. thorys are like records. its only a matter of time when a better one comes along.

 

[ashish27]

Post deleted by ashish27

 

[tdamskov]

As it happens, scientists accelerate matter to within fractions of light speed every day in particle accelerators. The time dilation effect on decaying particles are well known.

 

[origin]

<font color="yellow">Einsteins theory is firmly established,is infallible.</font><br /><br />Yes, Einsteins theory of general relativity has been firmly established. However there is probably no scientist in the world that would say it is infallible.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Falkor, ask yourself, your common sense this question. </font> <br /><br />Best be careful about asking common sense questions. Common sense depends on your knowledge level. 200 years ago common sense told you that man could never fly or that one element could not be turned into another element. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Have we achieved even 1/1000th the speed of light? How can we do a experiment at that speed?</font><br /><br />Simple - very precise measurements. That is why an atomic clock is used instead of an alarm clock.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">As for the warped space-time theory, its still a theory and not a law.</font><br /><br />In science a theory is a very strong statement. Yes it is a theory and a very strong and robust theory.<br /><br />It is good to question. I suggest going to physics sites, getting physics books out of the library, or taking a physics course at a community college. You have to understand the concept you are questioning as well as how science and experimentation work. Without this knowledge how can you effectively question any theory. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Yes we have acheived speeds very close to the speed of light...in particle accelerators. The partcles that are created last much longer at those those speeds than they would at normal speeds. This is one proof of the time dilation effect. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Sorry, didn't realize you had already replied <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>As for the warped space-time theory, its still a theory and not a law.</i><br /><br />Please reference Gravitational Lensing, Einstein Crosses, and the recent Gravity Probe B. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

And the precession of Mercury's orbit <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

The original, classic proof.<br /><br />[I figured the above three were more recent - easier to find in a Google search. I ain't doing his legwork for him <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ] <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

So far Einseins general theory of relativiy has proved infallible.Whether it is transit of mercury,starlight beding as seen in total solar eclipse so on and so forth.

 

[MeteorWayne]

It has been proved right within the limits of our current observations.<br /><br />Not exactly the same as infallible. Only the Pope qualifies for that <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>