Roll over Einstein: Pillar of physics challenged

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


I have yet to see any evidence from you that Relativity is flawed. What I see, instead, is a vast reservoir of experimentation and observation confirming Relativity with impeccable accuracy.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

I have yet to see any evidence from you that Relativity is flawed. What I see, instead, is a vast reservoir of experimentation and observation confirming Relativity with impeccable accuracy.

Nothing can be more impeccable than visible evidence.
Whereas with GR / SR, there are only conjectures, which
an undescening mind will accept as confirmation with
ahem.. impeccable accuracy.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


Don't tell me...you think your tomato provides enough impeccable visible evidence to invalidate every scientific test and confirmation of Relativity.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

Don't tell me...you think your tomato provides enough impeccable visible evidence to invalidate every scientific test and confirmation of Relativity.

edit on 16-10-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

Absolutely, and why not.
Besides all scientific expts to date to validate relativity yield dubious results, where
the beholder is left to tip either way, without being absolutely convinced.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Nothing can be more impeccable than visible evidence.
Whereas with GR / SR, there are only conjectures, which
an undescening mind will accept as confirmation with
ahem.. impeccable accuracy.

I agree that theory of evolution may look at times as a conjecture, just for the reason that we cannot re-run all of the evolutionary process in a lab under controlled conditions. But there is still plenty of evidence supporting it.

Compared with this "conjecture", relativity looks pretty solid because it's tested day in, day out in multiple labs and in the environment, and so far has been found to describe what we see.

In many cases the accuracy of the measurements has been quote impressive but it doesn't seem to bother you. Just like others in "Einstein was an idiot" crowd. All I can add to this is, et tu mama tambien.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
[
I agree that theory of evolution may look at times as a conjecture, just for the reason that we cannot re-run all of the evolutionary process in a lab under controlled conditions. But there is still plenty of evidence supporting it.

Compared with this "conjecture", relativity looks pretty solid because it's tested day in, day out in multiple labs and in the environment, and so far has been found to describe what we see.

In many cases the accuracy of the measurements has been quote impressive but it doesn't seem to bother you. Just like others in "Einstein was an idiot" crowd. All I can add to this is, et tu mama tambien.

Pretty solid eh, even though the gravity probe launched by nasa fails to confirm relativity conclusively.
Tut mir leid amiga, ich kann nur deutsch oder inglees und kann kein espanol

Einstien's GR theory may someday be superseded by something else, butthat should not detract from the fact that it is/was a very successful theory. Using Einstein's ideas, we can correctly predict the universe that we observe around us -- even though inevitable flaws will be found in his theories.

Isaac Newton's laws of motion are also not "perfect" and flaws have been found in them. However, this does not detract from the fact that Newton's laws of motion can generally be used to correctly predict the universe that we observe around us.

Even though Newton's ideas were found to not be exactly right, nobody is calling him an idiot like many of the armchair laymen physicists are currently doing on this thread regarding Einstein.

Einstein's ideas will someday be supplanted with someone else's ideas. However, that doesn't make Einstein "all wrong", just like Einstein's ideas didn't make Newton "all wrong". Newton was more right than wrong, and I believe Einstein is more right than wrong (as scientific observations seem to attest). The theories that will someday take the place of Einstein's ideas will not totally replace them, like reinventing the wheel. Rather, they will use and build upon the earlier ideas of Newton, Einstein, and others.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Using Einstein's ideas, we can correctly predict the universe that we observe around us -- even though inevitable flaws will be found in his theories.

Ahh yes armchair plethora...., which plethora of predictions exactly,
though einstein remains vindicated.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


Well, for one, General Relativity predicted that gravity could bend light, and sure enough Arthur Eddington proved Einstein right in his famous eclipse experiment in 1919.

Then there was also the observations carried out in 1974 by Russell A. Hulse and Joseph Taylor that won them the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1993. They confirmed the effect of "Gravitational Radiation" by studying the energy loss of two pulsars that are spiraling toward each other. Gravitational Radiation is a prediction of General Relativity, and Hulse's and Taylor's observations and calculations prove Einstein was right.

Another is the Geodetic Effect -- which is basically the curvature of space-time. Experiments carried out by the "Gravity B" space probe confirmed many of the nuances of the Geodetic Effect predicted by General Relativity. The Gravity B probe was the first instrument to be sensitive enough to accurately test the Geodetic Effect, proposed almost 100 years earlier. According to these experiments, General Relativity correctly quantifies the curvature of space-time.

He is an article (linked below) that outlines one possible explanation for that observation made by those CERN scientists. I apologize if the article was already posted here (I didn't see it):

Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity

excerpt

...So from the point of view of a clock on board a GPS satellite, the positions of the neutrino source and detector are changing. "From the perspective of the clock, the detector is moving towards the source and consequently the distance travelled by the particles as observed from the clock is shorter," says van Elburg.

By this he means shorter than the distance measured in the reference frame on the ground.

The OPERA team overlooks this because it thinks of the clocks as on the ground not in orbit.

How big is this effect? Van Elburg calculates that it should cause the neutrinos to arrive 32 nanoseconds early. But this must be doubled because the same error occurs at each end of the experiment. So the total correction is 64 nanoseconds, almost exactly what the OPERA team observes...

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

Well, for one, General Relativity predicted that gravity could bend light, and sure enough Arthur Eddington proved Einstein right in his famous eclipse experiment in 1919.

Incorrect. Gravity speeds up time so light takes a longer curved path

Then there was also the observations carried out in 1974 by Russell A. Hulse and Joseph Taylor that won them the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1993. They confirmed the effect of "Gravitational Radiation" by studying the energy loss of two pulsars that are spiraling toward each other. Gravitational Radiation is a prediction of General Relativity, and Hulse's and Taylor's observations and calculations prove Einstein was right.

This again is a function of time and nobel prize imo was erroneously awarded for lack of an alternative explanation.

Another is the Geodetic Effect -- which is basically the curvature of space-time. Experiments carried out by the "Gravity B" space probe confirmed many of the nuances of the Geodetic Effect predicted by General Relativity. The Gravity B probe was the first instrument to be sensitive enough to accurately test the Geodetic Effect, proposed almost 100 years earlier. According to these experiments, General Relativity correctly quantifies the curvature of space-time.

edit on 10/18/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Balloney. Again a function purely of time only. Planets do not repeat not follow the contours in space.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

Incorrect. Gravity speeds up time so light takes a longer curved path

Can you provide a link to information that explains what you are saying? everything i have ever read about the subject has said that gravity slows down time.

Maybe it is traveling through dimensions. because Einstein's physic laws cant apply to extra dimensions.

Originally posted by CannibalisticZombie
Maybe it is traveling through dimensions. because Einstein's physic laws cant apply to extra dimensions.

Ever heard of a "wormhole?"

Originally, they were called an "Einstein-Rosen bridge."

Einstein didn't formulate any "laws." But his Theory of Relativity certainly would apply in extra dimensions.

Harte

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

Well, for one, General Relativity predicted that gravity could bend light, and sure enough Arthur Eddington proved Einstein right in his famous eclipse experiment in 1919.

Incorrect. Gravity speeds up time so light takes a longer curved path

Then there was also the observations carried out in 1974 by Russell A. Hulse and Joseph Taylor that won them the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1993. They confirmed the effect of "Gravitational Radiation" by studying the energy loss of two pulsars that are spiraling toward each other. Gravitational Radiation is a prediction of General Relativity, and Hulse's and Taylor's observations and calculations prove Einstein was right.

This again is a function of time and nobel prize imo was erroneously awarded for lack of an alternative explanation.

Another is the Geodetic Effect -- which is basically the curvature of space-time. Experiments carried out by the "Gravity B" space probe confirmed many of the nuances of the Geodetic Effect predicted by General Relativity. The Gravity B probe was the first instrument to be sensitive enough to accurately test the Geodetic Effect, proposed almost 100 years earlier. According to these experiments, General Relativity correctly quantifies the curvature of space-time.

edit on 10/18/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Balloney. Again a function purely of time only. Planets do not repeat not follow the contours in space.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

Incorrect. Gravity speeds up time so light takes a longer curved path

Can you provide a link to information that explains what you are saying? everything i have ever read about the subject has said that gravity slows down time.

My own findings, chk out the link in my sig.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
chk out the link in my sig.

I did that and outside of that thread, I couldn't find one person to dispute what you said about antigravity versus the pH and eColi count of a tomato, not one. You may actually be the first person to ever think of that.

The only views I could find on it were in that thread where a lot of people seemed to think it was an April Fool's joke, since it was posted on April 1. But since you say it wasn't, I'm not sure what to think. It doesn't seem like there's enough there to overturn thousands of experiments over the last century which confirmed Einstein's theory, of which a partial list appears at this link: en.wikipedia.org...

I think you would have to make specific statements about exactly what you think the flaws are in experiments like the Hafele–Keating experiment and subsequent replications, to convince people that your claim about whether time speeds up or slows down differently than specified by relativity has the tiniest bit of merit. If you're right and Einstein was wrong, why did the Hafele–Keating experiment and subsequent experiments like those in section 5 here confirm Einstein's prediction?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The gobbledygooky hafele keating expt and the subsequent reptitions assume erroneously that colcks speed up with altitude or lower value of accl due to gravity.

If I am right with my AG results measured mechanically, electronically and optically, then surely einstein was wrong, and i am sure I am right cos I replicated
my results more than 3 times.
Visible proof is undeniable which even precludes peer review.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

I'm afraid just calling it "gobbledygooky" doesn't quite debunk the experiment. Relativity made a specific prediction, and the experimental results matched the prediction within the range of experimental error.

But if you have a better explanation, the world would like to know; has it been peer reviewed or replicated by anyone else? and if the Hafele-Keating experiment was performed under your model, would the results be the same or different? And whichever answer you have, how do you explain that? If it's the same then it's the world's biggest coincidence, but if it's different, then your theory is already contradicted by experiment, several of them.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I've already given my explanation. The very foundation of GR is flawed and all expts designed
to uphold the GR are bound to be flawed. For some unknown reason msm wants to maintain
status quo on einstein.
The expts under my model will certainly uphold my results , if radio active decay can be somehow stabilized
to yeild x no of alfa or beta particles in a controlled condition and the no of particle count
callibrated as a clock. Cessium atomic clocks do not take into account the internal clock of all constituents
of this universe.
I do not seek peer review for world security reasons, which I do not wish to elaborate here.