Could Einstein be wrong?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
As your other points have been addressed by other posters, I'll just take this one that is left: <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Falkor - Ask yourself how does a random number generator work on a logical computer? </font><br /><br />Simple - It doesn't. It generates what appears to be random numbers but, in reality, they're not. But, for most purposes, they serve rather well. If you can find a true mathematical random number generator usable with computer applications, you'd make a goodly sum of money. But, in essence, all random number generators are based on something that isn't random.. just extremely complex. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
A

ashish27

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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. <br /><br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes, Wayne you are right. My apologies for posting something total trash. I've deleted the post.<br /><br />And Origin is also right. Actually my mind was so troubled with business matters that day I had no sense what i was writing. Sorry.<br /><br />But my question is would a macro object (a bus, a spaceprobe) be squezzed flat if it were to travel at near light speeds? Do scientists have any experimental illustration for this?<br /><br />I am very poor in relativity, so poor that I would rather beleive its not correct. lol <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
P

primordial

Guest
origin I feel Mr. Einstein was correct in his work and feel he would have changed Relativity, had he lived longer. His work incorporated work done by a good many other Men Of Science (Maxwell, Planck, Michelson,Morley,Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Newton and a good many other people .), so I would rather think Mr. Einstein can only be incorporated in to someone else's Theory, not that he would be wrong but more like incomplete.
 
V

vandivx

Guest
"But my question is would a macro object (a bus, a spaceprobe) be squezzed flat if it were to travel at near light speeds? Do scientists have any experimental illustration for this? "<br />---<br />there is no experimental verfication of length shortening under high speeds, we can't accelerate any macroscopic bodies of matter to anywhere near relativistic speeds, only subatomic particles can and are accelerated to near speed of light but of course one couldn't tell any shortening of their length as they are invisible and really undefined as to their structure (particle wave duality)<br /><br />personally I don't believe in actual length shortening (such as pole fitting into short barn paradox thing) and I think scientists are sort of divided on the issue, it harks more of naive early days of relativity than of mature views I think all those pictorial macroscopic visualizations of relativity<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

danhezee

Guest
Einstein could very well be wrong and all of his work maybe considered bogus in the future. Einstein's work could end up being thrown out just like all the mathematical theories that explained retrograde motion of the planets compared to the sun when the earth was considered the center of the universe. Those mathematics were complex and explained what we could observed; it wasn’t until we changed the way we thought about the earth that we got simpler mathematical theories of planetary orbits around the sun. The formula that comes to mind is (d^3/r^2) =1. That is the distance of the planet from the sun cubed divided by the time it takes to complete an orbit squared always equals 1. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
You might be correct to a certain degree, but we have to consider that the old theories to explain the motions of the planets were based on a false assumption - that the universe was geocentric. There was no way to prove otherwise at the time.<br /><br />But Einsteins theory is based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant, whatever the peculiar motion of the observer. There are many existing ways to prove otherwise, but however we test, it seems to be true.<br /><br />In 1964, scientists at CERN, a particle accelerator located on the Swiss-French border near Geneva, managed to create tiny subatomic particles called neutral pions and have them move at the speed of 0.99975c. These particles then emitted light in the form of gamma rays. Intuitively, we might think that the scientists in the lab would have measured the gamma rays speed to be 0.99975c + c = 1.99975c (i.e. the speed of the source plus c). But, observing it to within an accuracy of 0.1%, they found that it was c.<br /><br />Throughout the universe, many stars can be found in pairs known as binary star systems. Within each such system, the two stars orbit each other about their common centre of mass, moving in elliptical patterns.<br /><br />Imagine a binary system in which the planes of both orbits appear flat to us on earth so that the stars only ever have horizontal velocities as far as we’re concerned. Some of the time, each star will be moving towards us and some of the time it will be moving away.<br /><br />Given this scenario, if the speed of light varied as we might naively expect, then the speed of light from a star moving directly towards us (star A) at speed v would be c+v and the speed of it from one moving away at the same speed (star B) c-v.<br /><br />This would mean that if both stars emitted some light at the same time (and they were the same distance away from us, as in the picture above), that we would see the light from star A sooner than that from star B.<br /><br />It would also im <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
M

majornature

Guest
Einstein wasn't wrong... and even if a future theory exists... it can be wrong too.<br /><br />We know the universe as it is today because Eistein and other great physics.<br /><br />Theories are nothing but hypothesis...they're not meant to be correct or otherwise we wouldn't be fascinated by the universe or wouldn't bother researching or experimenting...<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born.  We live.  We experiment.  We rot.  We die.  and the whole process starts all over again!  Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
<font color="yellow">Theories are nothing but hypothesis</font><br /><br />Hold on there! In science there is a huge difference between hypothesis and theory.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

majornature

Guest
What's the huge difference between hypothesis and theory? <br /><br />From my understanding, a theory comes from hypothesis. As a matter of fact: A theory is a repeated successful testing of a model (hypothesis) against a wide range of observations and in many different situations can cause a model(hypothesis) to be considered a theory. <br /><br />I've learn that a long time ago and it popped up again in my Planetary Astronomy Class. <br /><br />Just like I said in extension...Theories are nothing but hypothesis tested repeatedly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born.  We live.  We experiment.  We rot.  We die.  and the whole process starts all over again!  Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>
 
U

unclefred

Guest
To speedfreek: Your discussion of speeds adding only applies to physical particles. If light is a wave, then the speeds never add and the speed is totally dependent on the media it is travelling in. This is true for light and thus one would never â€intuitively†expect speeds to add. The sound from the horn of a speeding car does not travel faster than sound from a car standing still, nor does the light from a speeding car’s headings travel faster than from a car standing still and one would never expect it to travel faster.<br /><br /> Your discussion does not add or detract from the “Einstein wrong†discussion. It simply says that light travels as a wave and, as far as we know, does not require a medium and thus can travel in a vacuum. <br />
 
V

vandivx

Guest
'waving vacuum' ho hum<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

danhezee

Guest
that is weird that light doesnt have a medium to travel through. I have always wondered if that is evidence of higher/other dimensions? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts