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: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Things only get "debunked" in pseudoscience, in science they get replaced by new theories that usually are the old ones with some modifications.




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
The original poster, based on comments throughout the thread, has absolutely no idea what science is.

May I suggest you stop watching amateur video's on youtube as your #1 source for science and instead, do some science; Do some experiments (even simple ones)....

How can one call Einstein stupid / wrong etc. if one understands NOTHING regarding his theory and most likely has never actually read ANY of Einstein's works (you know, the papers that he HIMSELF wrote)....



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Read the books i posted here



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 

Actually I seem to recollect hat magnetic monopoles have been found recently. I can remember reading some article about it.

ok. found it

Monopoles found



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by 46ACE
 

Actually I seem to recollect hat magnetic monopoles have been found recently. I can remember reading some article about it.

ok. found it

Monopoles found



Sheldon did it in the big bang theory.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by NorEaster
I doubt that they'll be debunked in whole, but there is an aspect of scalable physics that will - once accurately identified - definitely result in Einstein's theories being properly associated within the totality of physical reality instead of being seen as the only plausible theories to explain physical reality. That aspect is the act that material existence is our own human perception of the symbiotic relationship between event trajectories and the informational continuum that emerges as a result of those trajectories.

Once that relationship is properly acknowledged as being the foundation of what we refer to as matter, all the mysteries of physics, from quantum to cosmological, will neatly crumble away and we'll be able to start eliminating the dogmas and misinformations that have plagued us since long before science took the place of magic in our world.


Personally, I think Einstein was wrong. He never described HOW or WHY matter "bends space-time." One has to take that entirely on faith. Subquantum kinetics has nothing it doesn't explain, and unifies electromagnetism with gravity. It is a unified theory.


You of course; would...Except Einsteins predictions based upon relativity have been proven out by experimentation and observation since the early1900's.


So, Ace... You would contend that nothing else could ever describe things better? That We must take on faith that matter bends space-time with no explanation how and why? When there seems to be a better description that explains all the effects - from the apparent time dilation to the bending of light - with nothing taken on faith? And unifying EM and gravity, to boot?


What do you mean by "nothing taken on faith"? And what specifically is this? And what consequences does it predict which are different? And how do you explain how particle accelerators currently work (as everything in them must be designed with relativity in mind)? And how do you explain gravitational lensing? And the observed decay of pulsar periods due to gravitational radiation? And the gravitational redshift?



Are You saying there is no way a better description will ever come along? That Einstein is the be-all and end-all? Progress would fail with all minds so narrow, I would think.


No, Einstein is not the be-all and end-all. To go beyond you need

a) a theory with quantitatively computable consequences
b) data which shows superior agreement with new theory vs old theory in areas
c) non-contradictory with Einstein in areas where other data stands, and internally



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by MonteroReal
Things only get "debunked" in pseudoscience, in science they get replaced by new theories that usually are the old ones with some modifications.

Get out much?
Reread.
Then read black swan.
Then get a life.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Confusion42
The original poster, based on comments throughout the thread, has absolutely no idea what science is.

May I suggest you stop watching amateur video's on youtube as your #1 source for science and instead, do some science; Do some experiments (even simple ones)....

How can one call Einstein stupid / wrong etc. if one understands NOTHING regarding his theory and most likely has never actually read ANY of Einstein's works (you know, the papers that he HIMSELF wrote)....

Fine.
Either quote me and prove that i know nothing about science, or get ready to be sued for libel.
I am not kidding.
Debunked is an expression.
Think black swans.
Obviously you have no creative thinking or perspective.
You have proged that with your comment.
No quote me of get ready to be sued.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 

It will never be debunked because it has already been proven experimentally to properly describe how certain aspects of existence works. Does it explain EVERYTHING about existence? No, so there's plenty of room for things to be discovered and added to the model of the universe that Relativity doesn't account for, but that doesn't mean Relativity goes out the window.

It's like Newton - Relativity did not overturn Newton, Newton's theories still accurately describe the Universe up to a certain point, however there was a point beyond which Newton couldn't see because our science and observations hadn't yet shown it was necessary or possible. Relativity explains those things Newton couldn't and didn't have to explain. Likewise, someone will eventually come along and create a theory that explains the Universe beyond what Relativity couldn't.
edit on 1/22/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Confusion42
The original poster, based on comments throughout the thread, has absolutely no idea what science is.

May I suggest you stop watching amateur video's on youtube as your #1 source for science and instead, do some science; Do some experiments (even simple ones)....

How can one call Einstein stupid / wrong etc. if one understands NOTHING regarding his theory and most likely has never actually read ANY of Einstein's works (you know, the papers that he HIMSELF wrote)....

You also get ready for a libel suite.
I am not kidding.
Quote me and prove i have no idea about science?
I have more idea and perspective then you do.
Debunking ia just a word, an expression.
I have a clearer perspective then you do.
Think black swans.
In fact i did exactly the opposite you claim.
So either quote me or get ready for a law suite.
And start thinking, because you are obviously hallucinaing thus far.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
reply to post by BBalazs
 

It will never be debunked because it has already been proven experimentally to properly describe how certain aspects of existence works. Does it explain EVERYTHING about existence? No, so there's plenty of room for things to be discovered and added to the model of the universe that Relativity doesn't account for, but that doesn't mean Relativity goes out the window.

It's like Newton - Relativity did not overturn Newton, Newton's theories still accurately describe the Universe up to a certain point, however there was a point beyond which Newton couldn't see because our science and observations hadn't yet shown it was necessary or possible. Relativity explains those things Newton couldn't and didn't have to explain. Likewise, someone will eventua
lly come along and create a theory that explains the Universe beyond would Relativity couldn't.

Debunked is an expression.
Yes it will be debunked, just as newton.
I am not going to repeat myself.
Reread my comments.
Think black swans.
Now either we are going to have a conversation or you are going to promote einstein despite the cern results.
Havr some perspective, history.
And newton is debunked, depends how you use the exprsssion.
I have already commented kn this.
If it wasnt we would be using newton physics for space travel.
So reread or go take your unlerspective mind somewhre else.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Wow people.
You are getting emotionalmover physics?
You should not get emotionaly attched (church of, exactly what i meant).
Now take a step back, relax.
Read the black swan.
Now debunked may be a strong word.
Fine.
Imagine another word.
That i admit, maybe its a strong word.
Although that is technically what happens (gets proven wrong).
Newton was proven wrong. Einsteins maths is more precise.
We still use newton, and einstien builds on newton, but he did get corrected (which is the same as debunked for thise that are not emotionally attached to phsyics.
So, now after 4 pages you understand the question, continue is this manner.
And that hallucinate things i did not say.
If you say i have no knowledge of science, quote me, or get brace yourself for a libel suite.
You only got to name calling, because YOU dont understand the question, but at cern and physicist all over the world are pondering this (i happen o know a few), not the reaction i got here.
Now you can prove your arrogance futher, by putting words in my mouth, defend einstein, your obvious god (emotional attachement) or we can have a conversation.
And you may want to know, i am probably older then you.
I majored in philisophy (scienific though) and law, amongst others.
So i know xactly what i am talking about.
Have some respect, or get out of this thread.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Einstien and his rules will continue to govern the laws which define our existence as we now know it, yet when they get though understanding the problems new information has brought forth we will understand that where these rules breakdown a new dimension begins with its own rules and laws. We are just now glimpsing the doorway into this new realm.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Confusion42
The original poster, based on comments throughout the thread, in my opinion, has absolutely no idea what science is.

May I suggest you stop watching amateur video's on youtube as your #1 source for science and instead, do some science; Do some experiments (even simple ones)....

How can one call Einstein stupid / wrong etc. if one understands NOTHING regarding his theory and most likely has never actually read ANY of Einstein's works (you know, the papers that he HIMSELF wrote)....

Fine.
Either quote me and prove that i know nothing about science, or get ready to be sued for libel.
I am not kidding.
Debunked is an expression.
Think black swans.
Obviously you have no creative thinking or perspective.
You have proged that with your comment.
No quote me of get ready to be sued.


Two quotes




E=mc2 has already been debunked. It is not even the full equation. The full equation has not been debunked you are right. I also think you failed to miss to point of this topic. Also, if particles can travel faster the the speed of light even your precious equations gone, although prob still used, just as newton, which is also wrong, but perfect for this word. So don't scam me, you religious nut (einstien religion) Its not about individual equations, but theories. Got it? Now you can take you e=mc2 to another topic, or contribute in the concept of what I wrote. And I aint wrote nothing on your sacred e=mc2. Dig?


First you say it has been debunked. Than you say it's not the full equation. That's an oxymoron.

Debunk means "to expose the sham or falseness of" (from the merriam webster)

E=mc2 has been proven TRUE for most if not all observable phenomena.

If anything, E=mc2 will be added upon (evolve); That's basically the opposite of being a sham.




Di I wite debunked? Are you even addressing this to me? If you want to go to space, you will not use newtonian physics will you know? If you would, back to earth you would plop. May eintein physics. Why is this such a hard concept for people to understand? Nothing is still in science and the universe. Nothing is eternal. What the hell is wrong with speculating? It called creative thinking. Try it.



Um, yea... Newtonian physics is what was used to get to the moon and such.

Are you a freaggin 5 year old kid with the "get ready to get sued?" IMAO who the hell are you to limit my free speech?

Again, who THE HELL are you to limit my free speech?

If anything, it's you who should be sued. Harassment (threats), conspiracy to rob one of their constitutional free speech rights, etc.






edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Confusion42
The original poster, based on comments throughout the thread, in my opinion, has absolutely no idea what science is.

May I suggest you stop watching amateur video's on youtube as your #1 source for science and instead, do some science; Do some experiments (even simple ones)....

How can one call Einstein stupid / wrong etc. if one understands NOTHING regarding his theory and most likely has never actually read ANY of Einstein's works (you know, the papers that he HIMSELF wrote)....

You also get ready for a libel suite.
I am not kidding.
Quote me and prove i have no idea about science?
I have more idea and perspective then you do.
Debunking ia just a word, an expression.
I have a clearer perspective then you do.
Think black swans.
In fact i did exactly the opposite you claim.
So either quote me or get ready for a law suite.
And start thinking, because you are obviously hallucinaing thus far.




Two quotes




E=mc2 has already been debunked. It is not even the full equation. The full equation has not been debunked you are right. I also think you failed to miss to point of this topic. Also, if particles can travel faster the the speed of light even your precious equations gone, although prob still used, just as newton, which is also wrong, but perfect for this word. So don't scam me, you religious nut (einstien religion) Its not about individual equations, but theories. Got it? Now you can take you e=mc2 to another topic, or contribute in the concept of what I wrote. And I aint wrote nothing on your sacred e=mc2. Dig?


First you say it has been debunked. Than you say it's not the full equation. That's an oxymoron.

Debunk means "to expose the sham or falseness of" (from the merriam webster)

E=mc2 has been proven TRUE for most if not all observable phenomena.

If anything, E=mc2 will be added upon (evolve); That's basically the opposite of being a sham.




Di I wite debunked? Are you even addressing this to me? If you want to go to space, you will not use newtonian physics will you know? If you would, back to earth you would plop. May eintein physics. Why is this such a hard concept for people to understand? Nothing is still in science and the universe. Nothing is eternal. What the hell is wrong with speculating? It called creative thinking. Try it.



Um, yea... Newtonian physics is what was used to get to the moon and such.

Are you a freaggin 5 year old kid with the "get ready to get sued?" IMAO who the hell are you to limit my free speech?

Again, who THE HELL are you to limit my free speech?

If anything, it's you who should be sued. Harassment (threats), conspiracy to rob one of their constitutional free speech rights, etc.

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Einstein's theory will and is simply be expanded upon.
edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Confusion42
The original poster, based on comments throughout the thread, has absolutely no idea what science is.

May I suggest you stop watching amateur video's on youtube as your #1 source for science and instead, do some science; Do some experiments (even simple ones)....

How can one call Einstein stupid / wrong etc. if one understands NOTHING regarding his theory and most likely has never actually read ANY of Einstein's works (you know, the papers that he HIMSELF wrote)....

Fine.
Either quote me and prove that i know nothing about science, or get ready to be sued for libel.
I am not kidding.
Debunked is an expression.
Think black swans.
Obviously you have no creative thinking or perspective.
You have proged that with your comment.
No quote me of get ready to be sued.


Two quotes




E=mc2 has already been debunked. It is not even the full equation. The full equation has not been debunked you are right. I also think you failed to miss to point of this topic. Also, if particles can travel faster the the speed of light even your precious equations gone, although prob still used, just as newton, which is also wrong, but perfect for this word. So don't scam me, you religious nut (einstien religion) Its not about individual equations, but theories. Got it? Now you can take you e=mc2 to another topic, or contribute in the concept of what I wrote. And I aint wrote nothing on your sacred e=mc2. Dig?


First you say it has been debunked. Than you say it's not the full equation. That's an oxymoron.

Debunk means "to expose the sham or falseness of" (from the merriam webster)

E=mc2 has been proven TRUE for most if not all observable phenomena.

If anything, E=mc2 will be added upon (evolve); That's basically the opposite of being a sham.




Di I wite debunked? Are you even addressing this to me? If you want to go to space, you will not use newtonian physics will you know? If you would, back to earth you would plop. May eintein physics. Why is this such a hard concept for people to understand? Nothing is still in science and the universe. Nothing is eternal. What the hell is wrong with speculating? It called creative thinking. Try it.



Um, yea... Newtonian physics is what was used to get to the moon and such.

Are you a freaggin 5 year old kid with the "get ready to get sued?" IMAO who the hell are you to limit my free speech?

Again, who THE HELL are you to limit my free speech?

If anything, it's you who should be sued. Harassment (threats), conspiracy to rob one of their constitutional free speech rights, etc.






edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

Wow, you really know nothing about science. Dont assune i dont either.
Check it out:

www.youtube.com...

I shows wxactly what i said.
You are obviously on a first grade level in science.
I get back to the second part, when i light of the video, you disprove what i wrote.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Confusion42
The original poster, based on comments throughout the thread, in my opinion, has absolutely no idea what science is.

May I suggest you stop watching amateur video's on youtube as your #1 source for science and instead, do some science; Do some experiments (even simple ones)....

How can one call Einstein stupid / wrong etc. if one understands NOTHING regarding his theory and most likely has never actually read ANY of Einstein's works (you know, the papers that he HIMSELF wrote)....

You also get ready for a libel suite.
I am not kidding.
Quote me and prove i have no idea about science?
I have more idea and perspective then you do.
Debunking ia just a word, an expression.
I have a clearer perspective then you do.
Think black swans.
In fact i did exactly the opposite you claim.
So either quote me or get ready for a law suite.
And start thinking, because you are obviously hallucinaing thus far.




Two quotes




E=mc2 has already been debunked. It is not even the full equation. The full equation has not been debunked you are right. I also think you failed to miss to point of this topic. Also, if particles can travel faster the the speed of light even your precious equations gone, although prob still used, just as newton, which is also wrong, but perfect for this word. So don't scam me, you religious nut (einstien religion) Its not about individual equations, but theories. Got it? Now you can take you e=mc2 to another topic, or contribute in the concept of what I wrote. And I aint wrote nothing on your sacred e=mc2. Dig?


First you say it has been debunked. Than you say it's not the full equation. That's an oxymoron.

Debunk means "to expose the sham or falseness of" (from the merriam webster)

E=mc2 has been proven TRUE for most if not all observable phenomena.

If anything, E=mc2 will be added upon (evolve); That's basically the opposite of being a sham.




Di I wite debunked? Are you even addressing this to me? If you want to go to space, you will not use newtonian physics will you know? If you would, back to earth you would plop. May eintein physics. Why is this such a hard concept for people to understand? Nothing is still in science and the universe. Nothing is eternal. What the hell is wrong with speculating? It called creative thinking. Try it.



Um, yea... Newtonian physics is what was used to get to the moon and such.

Are you a freaggin 5 year old kid with the "get ready to get sued?" IMAO who the hell are you to limit my free speech?Es

Again, who THE HELL are you to limit my free speech?

If anything, it's you who should be sued. Harassment (threats), conspiracy to rob one of their constitutional free speech rights, etc.

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

Yeah newton pshyics for calculation of heavenly bodies and such.
Sure.
In your dream.
Back to the school bench you go.
I am sure you also use euclid maths for heavanly bidies right?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Yeah.
Doubt i will hear from confusion after he watched the video.
It is now a troll free area.
Video proves what i have written.
It is not an oxymoron.
This thread liberated from religous people!
What video, you ask?
This one, i say:

www.youtube.com...


Dont forget.
I know words.
I know what i say.
I don loose the plot.
You may debate me, but if you do it with emotions ou will always loose.
I am superior to emotional debaters, as my thinkig is superior.
So back the einstien church...



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   


Wow, you really know nothing about science. Dont assune i dont either.
Check it out:

www.youtube.com...

I shows wxactly what i said.
You are obviously on a first grade level in science.
I get back to the second part, when i light of the video, you disprove what i wrote.


All that the video tries to claim is that for small scale things, there's an expanded version of e=mc^2 ,,,,

How does the video debunk anything?

Furthermore, who are the people in the video?

Meanwhile, here is some proof of e=mc^2 from 10 of the top physicists in the field.

Source: NOVA

This one might deal with something that the video was talking about.



Janet Conrad
Experimental Physicist
Columbia University

E = mc2 is a very fundamental statement about the idea of what mass is, and that mass can be equivalent to energy. And we can actually convert mass into energy. But the thing that I wanted to say is that E = mc2 is not the whole of the equation that Einstein wrote down. And it's worth talking about what the whole equation looks like, because it's very related to what kind of research I actually do. The research that I do is on a particle called the neutrino. And for a long time we thought that neutrinos were massless particles. And when I started, my sister said how is it possible that a particle can be massless? Because when she thinks about a particle she thinks about a little speck of dust or something like that. Whereas when I think about a particle I think about a little packet of energy coming out of this equation from Einstein, E = mc2. And, in fact, the whole equation is E is equal to mc2, the amount of energy the particle would have if it was sitting still, plus the extra energy that it would have if it has any motion. And if you think about it in that equation, if you now say E is equal to mc2 plus this energy of motion, you could set the mass equal to zero and you still have energy. And so as far as a particle physicist is concerned, there's still a particle there. It's just a particle that can't ever stop. It always has energy of motion. It's always going the speed of light. So for me there's a lot more to the equation than E = mc2. It matters a lot to my field.





Frank Wilczek Theoretical Physicist MIT E = mc2 famously suggests the idea that you can get a lot of energy out of a small amount of mass. But that's not what Einstein had in mind, really, and you won't find that equation in the original paper. The way he wrote it was M = e/c2 and the original paper had a title that was a question, which was, "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content?" So right from the beginning Einstein was thinking about the question of could you explain mass in terms of energy. It turned out that the realization of that vision, the understanding of how not only a little bit of mass but most of the mass, 90 percent or 95 percent of the mass of matter as we know it, comes from energy. We build it up out of massless gluons and almost massless quarks, producing mass from pure energy. That's the deeper vision.

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join