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

I dare all the smary pants here, to debunk this man:
nohiggs.wordpress.com...


If you have done that, lets talk.

^lulz^



All the real "smary" pants should just come up with their own theory, especially if they have a problem with any existing ones.

Thats the kind of thing Einstein would love, people thinking.

reply to post by truthinfact


great idea. that's exactly what i am going to do now that you've suggested it. i am going to mystically create out of the ether inviolable physical laws at will--because im an omniscient, omnipotent god just like you.

c'mon MODS?!?! SKUNK WORKS!!!!!! This site is getting so sad.

reply to post by Threadfall

yep, Einstein is infalable.
he will never be corrected or updated. he is the constant. the shining path.
anyone questioning scientific accuracy on a universal level is insane.
ftl nutrinos? bahhh
countless astronomical observations that don't match up? bahhhh
no higgs boson field? whatever
scientific flaws? never happened
inherantly flawed models? whatever
countless unexplained and brushed away phenenoma upon which quantum theory is built? B.s.
Einstien is the beginning and the end.
No other way, its skunk works all the way.
it is very open minded to not debunk existing theories.


if you respect science, debunk this man and we can talk:
nohiggs.wordpress.com...

I guess it unscientific and denying to expose scientific fallacies of the one true god: einstein.
Just debunk the man, and lets get this over with.
if you cannot do that, I suggest you keep you uninformed, and highly charged opinion to yourself.

and here is a list of unsolved problems in physics.


List of Unsolved Problems in Physics

reply to post by truthinfact

Here is an interview with the professor.
This doesn't just indicate puzzles, but that quantum chronography and the standard model, are built on sand.
Debunk him if you will:

An interview with Eliyahu Comay
Dr. Eliyahu Comay is a theoretical physicist, born in 1932. In the course of his scientific career, he has researched and delved deeply into fundamental questions of physics, constructed and developed a new model that he published as a series of articles in scientific journals. Comay’s model explains the structure of protons and neutrons and the forces at work inside them, known as strong forces.

In the 1960s, it became clear that protons and neutrons contain three particles called quarks. Comay contends that in the same way that an atom is composed of a nucleus pulling electrons together to form a shell structure, protons and neutrons also have an analogous component, called core, that pulls quarks into a shell structure, and the three quarks belong to the outer shell of the proton and the neutron.

In many ways, this model differs greatly from the model known as quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which is part of the standard model accepted by particle physicists. According to QCD, there are no massive particles other than the quarks inside the proton and the neutron, which are bound together by other particles known as gluons.

The interview below consists of several conversations with Comay conducted in 2010 and combined into a single article.

Current scientific literature presumes without a shadow of doubt the correctness of the standard model. Why do you doubt it?
The standard model is actually a combination of a number of theories, some of which I find excellent. My model focuses on an understanding of the structure of protons, neutrons and strong forces, which is very different from QCD. With regard to QCD in particular and physics in general it is important to understand that the validity of a physical theory becomes questionable if it is associated with proven failures. It would seem that there is a very large collection of experimental results that either contradict QCD or, at the very least, have yet to be substantiated by it.

For example?
The main thing that has remained unexplained for the past eighty years since protons and neutrons were discovered is the nature of the active forces between them, known as strong nuclear forces. Even now, it is not clear what holds the proton and neutron together within the atomic nucleus, and nuclear physicists rely on phenomenological formulae that bear no relationship to QCD. Leading scientists have stated openly in scientific articles and even in textbooks that the behavior of the forces between protons and neutrons contradicts QCD.

And what is the position of today’s scientists on this question?
The scientific community considers it to be an “open” problem, meaning one that has already been awaiting resolution for decades, ever since the creation of the QCD model in the 1960s and 1970s. My model offers a solution to this problem.

Is it normal to wait such a very long time for such a fundamental question to be resolved?
I don’t think so, and history shows that when a viable theory comes up, it is normally confirmed after just a few years of experimental work. That’s how things evolved in the case of the Dirac equation that was published in 1928 and analysis of its possible solutions prompted speculation on the existence of antimatter. The projected theory was confirmed four years later. The same thing happened when the theory of quarks was published by Gell-Mann and Zweig. At the beginning of the sixties, based on this theory, Murray Gell-Mann and Yuval Ne’eman predicted the existence of the Omega-minus particle. This particle was found just a few years later.

What other phenomena are unexplained?
In the experiments that were carried out at CERN in the eighties phenomena were discovered that remain unexplained until today. One, known as the “First EMC Effect”, indicates that for the proton and the neutron, quark’s volume inside the nucleus of a large atom is greater than inside a small one. The other phenomenon, known as the “Second EMC Effect” or latterly as the “Proton Spin Crisis” reveals that the total spin value of a proton is much greater than the sum of the spin values of the quarks that comprise it. These phenomena are still awaiting clarification within the QCD model context.

Does your model explain these phenomena?
Yes. For the first EMC effect, the explanation is implicit in the nature of my model. Regarding the proton spin crisis, I have a little story. Already in the 1950s it became evident that the structure of electron shells in an atom is very different from what intuition might lead one to believe. Even in its simplest case, at the ground state of the helium atom that has only two electrons, a single electron actually belongs to several different types of configurations. This seems strange and almost inconceivable, but the mathematical evidence of it was demonstrated by Nobel Prize laureate, Eugene Wigner and Israel Prize winner, Yoel Racah. In the late 1950s, early computers have provided an explicit proof of this point. The same mathematical reasoning was later extended to apply to the shells of protons and neutrons within the atomic nucleus. I investigated this approach in greater depth while preparing my second degree thesis at the end of the 1960s, when I applied it to light atomic nuclei.

In conclusion, had scientists also applied this proven knowledge to quarks, they would easily have solved the problem of the proton spin crisis. Furthermore, it can be stated that if the second EMC work would have shown that quarks carry the entire proton spin then this result should have been regarded as a failure of quantum theory.

Are there any other phenomena that challenge the standard model?
There are many more unexplained phenomena that appear to counter the QCD approach. Some are labeled exotic, and these include the rising cross-section in proton collision confirmed in experiments conducted about ten years ago, electric charge distribution of a neutron, proton antiquark volume, the proton form factor, the strong CP problem, and more. All these phenomena are easily explained by my model.

There is also a new set of matter states predicted by QCD but not discovered. These include “glueballs”, “strange quark matter”, di-baryons and pentaquarks. According to my model, these matter states simply do not exist and that is the reason that efforts to detect them failed. It would certainly be true to state that if the existence of any one of those matter states is proven, my model will be invalidated.

There are many more phenomena that can be explained using my model, and which do not contradict QCD. Some are differently explained by QCD.

On the other hand, there is another fascinating group of phenomena that do contradict QCD. These are connected with photons – a type of particle that people call “light” and the properties of which we think we know well.

Forgotten Facts about Light
Thousands of electrically powered devices, such as mobile phones, radios, TVs, are all based on our understanding of the nature of light, are they not? What more is there to learn here?
True – Maxwell’s equations formulated in the nineteenth century, the photoelectric effect explained by Einstein at the beginning of the twentieth century, and quantum physics that was mainly developed during the first half of the last century, contributed significantly to our understanding of the properties of light. Today, we know that light is made up of particles, known as photons,


PS: you will note, the professor is Jewish, Israeli. I bring this up, as some had the guts to hint upon, that I may have a problem (which I do not) with Einstein, because of his race. Now that is the very definition of ignorance and arrogance, to assume that.
I love all, and even had a Jewish wife, so there.

i don't think it will ever really be "debunked", just as how the theory itself does not "debunk" anything.

it will be built on, as we grow ever closer to discovering the "scientific" proof behind what it is that lurks underneath all of these "special" equations.

as to "when" this will happen, i believe it will be soon..

Include time and you will experience the 4th dimension...space/time.