It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When will Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity be debunked and what will replace it (speculative)?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by rollin76
I thought Einsteins theory of relitivity was already debunked.Cern said sub atomic particles can travel 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light from expiriments with lhc.


Define travel.




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by rollin76
I thought Einsteins theory of relitivity was already debunked.Cern said sub atomic particles can travel 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light from expiriments with lhc.


1. Before it is accepted that those 'superluminal neutrinos' indeed traveled faster than the speed of light, they should explain why, when a supernova explodes, the neutrinos move at the speed of light.



Explosive astronomical evidence Nicole Bell, a senior lecturer in theoretical particle physics at the University of Melbourne in Australia, pointed to an example from astronomy that seems to refute the latest results. It comes from a star that went supernova in 1987 within the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy. Supernovae are formed when stars explode as they get too large or reach the end of their lives. As part of the radiation emitted when they do this, they release neutrinos and light. The Kamioka Nucleon Decay Experiment detector in Japan picked up neutrinos from the explosion three hours before light from supernova event reached Earth. "However, this does not mean the neutrinos travelled faster than the speed of light. It just means that the neutrinos left the supernova first, while the light was trapped in the supernova for longer before it could get out," said Bell. If the neutrinos from the explosion actually had been travelling faster than the speed of light, like the CERN experiment suggests, they would have reached Earth years, rather than hours, before the light did, explained Bell. "In a way, you can regard the supernova observation as an independent experiment result which refutes the OPERA measurement."


2. Both General relativity and Special relativity has been proved time and time again. If relativity didn't work as predicted, GPS's would have had an error of around 10km a day!!! The timing of the GPS signal, has to be changed to a amount exactly as what is predicted by both general and special relativity. Without building those correction factors into the GPS system, (and relativity exist), the GPS position error would have been more than 10 km in a single day.



To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy. Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion. Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day. The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently about 5000 meters in the air somewhere over Detroit.


www.cosmosmagazine.com...
www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu...
warning. this is quite a mathematical pdf.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by rollin76
I thought Einsteins theory of relitivity was already debunked.Cern said sub atomic particles can travel 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light from expiriments with lhc.

Well we are waiting for that event to be reobserved by a second measuring station.
Should that happen Einstein is gone within 1-2 years.
If not, who knows.
But it will be debunked sooner or latter. Believing otherwise is just religion. And arrogant at that.


It's more arrogant to think that pieces of work which are used in thousands of different areas of physics, will simply be "debunked".

In Science, things are added on to, reformulated, adjusted, etc.

You cannot simply "prove" that all Einstein's work was bunk. If certain areas need work, that's one thing, but to completely disprove absolutely everything he worked on, the universe would have to change its physics completely.


Ok, I didn't think girls were reading it that had emotional feelings regarding physics.
You are write, if einstein is debunked (which he will be), one way to go is to build upon it, or start again.
You have no idea, which will happen.
Neither do I.
The point here is to speculate, and not ridicule people.
BTW, I will write down your name and when cern results are confirmed, I will hound you and make fun of you at my leisure.
Please change your attitude.
You should now fully understand the concept.
If you don't want to partake, fine. Go somewhere else.
But you are now just proving your ignorance, and the you are unable to understand what speculation is.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs


If you want to go to space, you will not use newtonian physics will you know?

 


Plenty of physics from Newton still apply in space.

One of his theories was even validated on the moon... So I'm not sure what you are talking about.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
When was Newton debunked?
That's asking the right question.

Because if you understand the answer to this, you will understand the most likely answer to how Einstein will get debunked the same way.

Even though Einstein made corrections to Newton's math which apply at relativistic velocities and in gravitational fields where extreme precision is needed, for the most part Newton's math is still valid for lots of everyday calculations which are not relativistic and don't require extreme precision.

If I had to guess, I would guess that Einstein's math may meet a similar fate as Newton's math. There may be further refinements possible, but it seems to work pretty well with the knowledge we have to date, just as Newton's math seemed to work pretty well for centuries until measurements became more precise and a few adjustments were needed which Einstein provided.

I think what is much more likely than Einstein being proven wrong, is finding a whole new theory of quantum gravity, which Einstein's math doesn't even address. This seems to be one of the largest gaps in physics: the lack of a quantum gravity theory which unites quantum mechanics and relativity. And once that quantum gravity theory is developed and tested, it certainly may have some impact on the theory of relativity.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by BBalazs


If you want to go to space, you will not use newtonian physics will you know?

 


Plenty of physics from Newton still apply in space.

One of his theories was even validated on the moon... So I'm not sure what you are talking about.

plenty. right.
whats your problem. is the question close to home?
YOU cannot fly to the moon with NEWTON physics. Both you and I no that for a fact.
So keep lying or move on.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by boncho
When was Newton debunked?
That's asking the right question.

Because if you understand the answer to this, you will understand the most likely answer to how Einstein will get debunked the same way.

Even though Einstein made corrections to Newton's math which apply at relativistic velocities and in gravitational fields where extreme precision is needed, for the most part Newton's math is still valid for lots of everyday calculations which are not relativistic and don't require extreme precision.

If I had to guess, I would guess that Einstein's math may meet a similar fate as Newton's math. There may be further refinements possible, but it seems to work pretty well with the knowledge we have to date, just as Newton's math seemed to work pretty well for centuries until measurements became more precise and a few adjustments were needed which Einstein provided.

I think what is much more likely than Einstein being proven wrong, is finding a whole new theory of quantum gravity, which Einstein's math doesn't even address. This seems to be one of the largest gaps in physics: the lack of a quantum gravity theory which unites quantum mechanics and relativity. And once that quantum gravity theory is developed and tested, it certainly may have some impact on the theory of relativity.

Well at least someone understands the point of the topic.
Speculation.
If cern result are confirmed 2 thing can happen:
1. Einsteins str will be mocked up, repackaged, but by all use of the word debunked, as it no longer applies. Off course an einsteinium hybrid could be used, unil something better comes along.
2. In the long run, we could start again. New theory. As long as its scientifically valid, and explains all, this is a possibility.
No one knows, what will happen.
The idea is to speculate, on what may happen.

And yes, einstein will be debunked. Everything gets debunked. Think black swans, if nothing else pops up.
You may see it as building upon, and that fine. But when you use one mathematics for earth (for convenience) and one for space, the earlier is practically debunked, but still in use. Just because it is in use, doesn't make it the most precise explanation.
What so hard to understand about this?
Science is a precise subject.
If we now there is a more precise model, by its very nature the previous is debunked.
You can still hold NEwton and the like in high esteem.
But this is not a religion, so let go of your idols.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Einstein's theories are NONSENSE, and they have led all of science down the wrong path for a hundred years.

Everything that "everyone knows" has ALWAYS turned out to be wrong. What makes you think that men have been wrong about everything for thousands of years, but NOW we are right? That is madness.

IT's the herd mentality. "We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one new delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.
…Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." -– Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1852

Anyone with ideas that break from the crowd, are shouted down or ignored. For example, the Wright Brothers. Do I need to say more?




In this thread, Robin argues that "every scientist and intelligent person for thousands of years had known that heavier than air flight was possible since it was an observable, inescapable fact." However, according to -- technology.newscientist.com...=specrt15_p --

"The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers' flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that 'heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible', only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later."

Further, as late as January 1905 -- more than a year after the Wright Brothers' historic first flight -- Scientific American magazine expressed skepticism about whether they had flown. An article titled "The Wright Aeroplane and its Fabled Performance" states: "If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face--even if he has to scale a fifteen-story sky-scraper to do so-- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?" See invention.psychology.msstate....ightSiAm1.html...


So back then,none of these "geniuses" could look around them and see that birds, for example, are heavier than air and fly just fine. Because that would be fighting against the currents coming from their professors, and their "peers" as in "peer reviewed literature".




The astronomer Fred Hoyle once wrote of the herd mentality in his profession: “The trouble with conformity is that the process has strong positive feedback. The baaing starts up at a volume low enough to permit stronger-minded animals to think for themselves without too much trouble. Progressively, however, we break down one-by-one, losing all power of sensible judgement, to the point where we can do nothing but add our own baaing to the uproar, which eventually rises to such monumental proportions that nothing remains for the flock except the butcher's shop.”


The Electric or Plasma Universe theory, while most likely not right either, is MORE RIGHT than Einstein's nonsense. It explains things that we observe MUCH BETTER.

The Madness of Black Holes



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
As broken as your english is you are a wise man. He will be debunked. Using his science will never get us anywhere other than where we are now.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by BBalazs


If you want to go to space, you will not use newtonian physics will you know?

 


Plenty of physics from Newton still apply in space.

One of his theories was even validated on the moon... So I'm not sure what you are talking about.

plenty. right.
whats your problem. is the question close to home?
YOU cannot fly to the moon with NEWTON physics. Both you and I no that for a fact.
So keep lying or move on.


Semantics, you can't fly to the moon without chemical engineering also. I don't get your point.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs


But when you use one mathematics for earth (for convenience) and one for space, the earlier is practically debunked, but still in use. Just because it is in use, doesn't make it the most precise explanation.
What so hard to understand about this?
Science is a precise subject.

 


Things operate different on a micro/macro level, which takes into account mediums, vacuums, and a multitude of other factors that alter the way things operate.

Your willingness to write off Scientific study is unreal.

Arbitrageur put it best what I was trying to verbalize before. However, I sense from you, you are seeking people to shout out "Einstein was wrong!" from the rooftops, and I don't get it.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I just provided you guys with tons of evidence. However, many of you are too closed minded or ignorant to be able to understand it. Brainwashing is strong. Einstein was a #ing moron who most likely stole someones ideas to pass off as his own(worked at a patent office). It's why a 4th grader is doing math to prove him wrong.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Everything that "everyone knows" has ALWAYS turned out to be wrong. What makes you think that men have been wrong about everything for thousands of years, but NOW we are right?
Sometimes we're right, and sometimes we're wrong.

Thousands of years ago, Eratosthenes stuck two sticks in the ground and from the shadows he not only determined that the Earth was a sphere, but he calculated how big it was, and he did it pretty accurately considering he was just using two sticks and some shadows, and some good insight.

So was he wrong? You could make arguments that his measurement was slightly off (it was), or that the Earth isn't a perfect sphere (which is correct). But I see these as refinements and not proof that he was wrong, and I think there's a difference. In modern times, refinements to existing models are frequent. But showing existing models are entirely wrong is quite rare nowadays. And this ties back to the point in my earlier post, that we are more likely to come up with refinements to Einstein's theories, than we are to prove them entirely wrong. Maybe you don't see the difference, but I do.
edit on 20-1-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by tpaine1809
I just provided you guys with tons of evidence. However, many of you are too closed minded or ignorant to be able to understand it. Brainwashing is strong. Einstein was a #ing moron who most likely stole someones ideas to pass off as his own(worked at a patent office). It's why a 4th grader is doing math to prove him wrong.


Yup. Few will listen, though, or even consider changing their worldview.

Ask a real scientist, what's the difference between mass and matter? What IS gravity? How does a permanent magnet work? They will spout gobbledygook, but finally it will come down to, "We don't know". So their THEORIES are full of holes, and obviously WRONG.

Here's an article, from a COMEDY website (great one by the way) no less, that easily pokes holes in a lot of theories. www.cracked.com...

The CERN results have been duplicated, meaning it was not an accident. Meaning, they have made particles exceed the speed of light. Meaning, Einstein's entire plagiarized theory comes crashing down. IT IS WRONG. No question about it.

Here is a good website to get a grounding in the Electric Universe theories. While they will probably turn out wrong as well, they are LESS WRONG than Einstein.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptChaosThe CERN results have been duplicated, meaning it was not an accident. Meaning, they have made particles exceed the speed of light. Meaning, Einstein's entire plagiarized theory comes crashing down. IT IS WRONG. No question about it.
 


You have a peer reviewed paper to link us to?




Ask a real scientist, what's the difference between mass and matter? What IS gravity? How does a permanent magnet work? They will spout gobbledygook, but finally it will come down to, "We don't know". So their THEORIES are full of holes, and obviously WRONG.


If you asked someone what electricity was a thousand years ago, and they said nothing, would that make their version of the wheel wrong?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos

Originally posted by tpaine1809
I just provided you guys with tons of evidence. However, many of you are too closed minded or ignorant to be able to understand it. Brainwashing is strong. Einstein was a #ing moron who most likely stole someones ideas to pass off as his own(worked at a patent office). It's why a 4th grader is doing math to prove him wrong.


Yup. Few will listen, though, or even consider changing their worldview.

Ask a real scientist, what's the difference between mass and matter? What IS gravity? How does a permanent magnet work? They will spout gobbledygook, but finally it will come down to, "We don't know". So their THEORIES are full of holes, and obviously WRONG.


No, they will explain them carefully, and people who are ignorant will think it's gobbledygook, and those who are ignorant and egotistical will assume that means the theories are "full of holes" and "wrong".

And answering questions like "what IS" something is fortunately left to unnatural philosphers, the natural philosophers (scientists) answer only questions like "what does it DO", and they're answered very well these days.

"between mass and matter?" This is not a physics question but a linguistics question. In common scientific usage, mass is equated with the property of possessing inertia, so that (at low velocities) equations of motion are second order differential equations and not first order. "matter" is roughly all leptons & quarks with nonzero mass. Virtualyl the same.

"what IS gravity" --- the phenomenon whereby all inertial motion is altered by the presence of distant matter & energy via the deformation of the metric.

"how does a permanent magnet work" - in most materials as energy states of electrons are filled from lowest to highest energy the net spin cancels, usually because similarly populated spins result in a higher energy. However, in some materials called "ferromagnetic", the interaction between nearby atoms (quantum mechanics of many-body charged particles) is such that you can fill some of lower energy states in a way such that there are unpaired spins, so the electrons in the atoms make a net spin. Furthermore, the interaction between neighboring atoms is such that the energy is lowest when they each have their net spin pointing in the same direction. Therefore the minimum energy state has many spins from neighbors aligned. Because individual electrons have a magnetic moment commensurate with their spin (an intrinsic property of electrons) this means that you can get a macroscopic magnetic field from all the electrons adding up.

In a nutshell, electrons themselves are permanent magnets, but most of the time they're all pointing in random directions so their magnetic fields cancel. Some of the time, they like to line up and then you get a big magnetic field from all of them.
edit on 20-1-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Anyone else notice the inverse relationship where the less the understanding of the individual, the more confident they are that Einstein was wrong and relativity will be overturned?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Indeed Drunken lol



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Which of Einsteins theories are you talking about? Capillary forces, Photo-electrics, Brownian Motion, General Relativity, Special Relativity or one of the others?

None of his theories was rigorously complete, there is much they do not explain.

Quantum Mechanics, Chromodynamics & Electrodynamics, String Theory and all sorts of other theories have been proposed since as ways to resolve the things that Einsteins theories do not explain.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


FTL particles have been found by Tesla but the detection device has not been
given to the 99% to talk about. One reason was Tesla based at least some
free energy ideas on the discovery. Also proving he had one free energy device
was enough to make sure Einstein overshadowed the 50x SOL Tesla particles
to never hit the light of day. To me Einstein theories are worthless and invest
in everything Tesla.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join