Does anyone believe that Einstein is wrong?

[johnnny92008]

I believe he is wrong about Gravity and Space Time.

[north]

I believe he is wrong about Gravity and Space Time.

 

agreed

[johnnny92008]

I realy think he was a schister, and gets way too much credit.

[D H]

Moved to pseudoscience.

 

Reality doesn't care what you believe. Reality is what it is -- and as far as we can tell, Einstein is right. Space and time are not nearly as simple as you would like them to be. There is overwhelming evidence in favor of relativity.

 

If Einstein's theories are wrong (and they probably are at some level), whatever comes along to replace them must still display things like time dilation and length contraction because those phenomena are very real.

[mooeypoo]

So what you two are saying is that even though the theory explains reality and makes *accurate* predictions time after time after time, so much so that we rely on it to design machinery, you think it's idiotic.

 

The fact you don't UNDERSTAND a theory, does not make it false. Claiming so just means you are using logical fallacies. Specifically, Argument from Ignorance.

 

Wow. Well. Good for you!

 

Now unless you're willing to fill up the gaps with some mathematics, predictions and logic, your statements are even more irrelevant than the logical fallacy they rely on.

 

~moo

[johnnny92008]

he cant be proved right, thats why its a theory

[mooeypoo]

he cant be proved right, thats why its a theory

johnnny, go read our rules of conduct, please.

 

The fact you haven't read or learned relativity does not mean it isn't true.

 

I know you haven't learned it, because if you had, you would know it *is* proven, some of it even before Einstein.

 

Other than that, single "pow!" sentences are worthless. You're not in a preacher's forum, you're in a science forum. If you don't have anything useful to contribute to a thread, don't.

 

 

~moo

[johnnny92008]

I apologize for not reading the rules of conduct. But here is how I see relativity. If a clock is moving away from you near the speed of light it will appear to slow down only because its takes the light longer to reach your eyes. It does not mean that time is really slowing down.

[Daecon]

Gravity is also only a theory. Are you saying that gravity can't be proved right either?

[johnnny92008]

What is gravity?

[mooeypoo]

What is gravity?

johnnny, please read the rules and Speculations Policy, before this thread will be closed too.

 

We are not here to entertain one-liner meaningless posts. If you want to learn and debate, you're welcome to. If you're here for one-liner trolling and non-substantiated claims without evidence, please reconsider your registration.

 

~moo

[johnnny92008]

I do want to learn and debate, but we are talking about a theory. There are no true, proven answers. I just want to know why you believe this theory.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And why are you so angry?

[mooeypoo]

I'm not angry, I'm frustrated. You insist on ignoring the rules, and there's a pretty clear result to that. Unfortunately.

 

Let me help you out here.

 

The Speculations forum is provided for those people who like to postulate new ideas in the realm of science' date=' or perhaps just make things up for fun. Whatever the case is, this forum is not a home for just any science-related idea you have. It has a few rules:

 

1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

2. Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either.

3. Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory.

 

 

Have fun.[/quote']

(Source: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=59&a=13)

 

The above is not a recommendation, it's a requirement.

 

So far, your posts had the common denominator of stateing "I'm right because I'm right", which is not science, not debating, and not following the speculation policy *or* the rules.

 

Go over the rules, so we can have a conducive debate, rather than a one-sided earmuffed stomping-the-ground insistence, followed by the unfortunate results of not respecting the forum rules.

 

~moo

[johnnny92008]

OK thanks.

[north]

I think that Einstein was wrong about space-time

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

so why do I think this ;

 

because neither space or time have any substance associated with them

 

therefore it seems to me that , while accurate to a degree , Einstein's findings have been misinterpreted

 

for example ;

 

the light from a star from behind the sun has not been bent because of space-time but because of the matter IN space

[mooeypoo]

I think that Einstein was wrong about space-time

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

so why do I think this ;

 

because neither space or time have any substance associated with them

 

therefore it seems to me that , while accurate to a degree , Einstein's findings have been misinterpreted

 

for example ;

 

the light from a star from behind the sun has not been bent because of space-time but because of the matter IN space

Before Einstein's publication, the issue of "matter" of space - the Ether - was strongly believed. Scientists devised experiment upon experiment to show how this "matter" in space affects light and other phenomena.

 

Experiment after experiment showed no difference between a claim that ether exists and a claim that ether does not exist.

For one of the more famous experiments, see the Michaelson-Morley experiment.

Therefore, the conclusion is that Ether is irrelevant. If something has no effect on the environment, it's as if it's nonexistent.

 

For example, I can claim an invisible pink unicorn pulls your feet down to earth - which is why you don't fall off it when it rotates. However, if my experiments fail to show any sort of phenomena related to this unicorn, or affected by this unicorn, then it is irrelevant. It's as if this unicorn doesn't exist.

 

The physicist Lorentz, who lived in Einstein's time, had a hard time accepting the idea that Ether does not exist. He knew of the experiments, and he knew that PRACTICALLY speaking, the experiments show that Ether isn't there. But he repeatedly stated that regardless of his own personal feelings against getting rid of the Ether, it's quite obvious that it isn't needed.

 

Your claim-premise that space is composed of matter has been shown to be false.

 

Unless you have actual evidence to provide that may shed light on a different conclusion, whatever logic follows this premise is bound to be flawed too.

 

~moo

[north]

mooeypoo

 

I didn't mention ether

 

what I'm saying is that between the spin of the sun , and that energy from the sun is three dimensional , meaning it is going away from us , as well as it is going towards us and the suns atmosphere

 

would bend any light from behind the sun , from our perspective

[mooeypoo]

mooeypoo

 

I didn't mention ether

Well, you said that it's the matter in space.

 

Either you mean stellar objects (stars, planets, etc) --- which produce gravity, and follow Einstein's theory, or you mean space ITSELF has matter, which is the same as saying Ether. Ether is just a name that was proposed to this so-called "matter" of space.

 

what I'm saying is that between the spin of the sun , and that energy from the sun is three dimensional , meaning it is going away from us , as well as it is going towards us and the suns atmosphere

 

would bend any light from behind the sun , from our perspective

You will need to provide more than just whimsey logic game to prove that, north. If you claim there's another phenomena here, or another force, or another "thing", you need to provide evidence.

 

And math. And a clear way of proving it existence, and a way by which its existence is proven false. In short - your theory needs to be founded on evidence, be predictive, and falsifiable.

 

Until you provide these, it's not a theory.

 

And claiming a theory that is WELL FOUNDED, proven, predictable, and falsifiable, is not true but not putting forth any viable alternatives that - at the very least - equal it by evidence, is really not the way to get your theory to be accepted.

 

By anyone.

 

~moo

[north]

what I'm saying is that between the spin of the sun , and that energy from the sun is three dimensional , meaning it is going away from us , as well as it is going towards us and the suns atmosphere

 

would bend any light from behind the sun , from our perspective

 

 

You will need to provide more than just whimsey logic game to prove that, north. If you claim there's another phenomena here, or another force, or another "thing", you need to provide evidence.

 

moo

 

what I'm putting forth is not based on logic but on reason

 

do you not agree that the sun is giving off solar plasmic energy at the other side of the sun opposite to us ?

[ajb]

I believe he is wrong about Gravity and Space Time.

 

Einstein was not wrong, but you must take care in the limits where general relativity is not applicable. Classically the theory breaks down. This is well known by all relativists, but they do not say that Einstein or general relativity is wrong. Neither did Feynman and other say that Maxwell was wrong when they developed QED.

 

Einstein wrong? No

 

Einstein the final word on things? No

[mooeypoo]

moo

 

what I'm putting forth is not based on logic but on reason

 

do you not agree that the sun is giving off solar plasmic energy at the other side of the sun opposite to us ?

"reason" that isn't based on evidence isn't science.

 

Check this out:

 

Premise: Unicorns are white.

Supporting Reason: All stories about unicorns describe it as white, from more than one society all over the world.

Conclusion: Unicorns exist.

 

The above sequence is reason. That does not make it science.

 

Read the speculation policy again, north. Reason without evidence is not science. It won't help a theory get accepted. It won't help your idea get merit.

 

You MUST support your claims, specifically when they come in opposition with an existing theory that does have evidence to support it.

 

~moo

[swansont]

moo

 

what I'm putting forth is not based on logic but on reason

 

do you not agree that the sun is giving off solar plasmic energy at the other side of the sun opposite to us ?

 

I agree it's not based on logic. What you need to do is explain how relativity has passed numerous tests and the bending of the light agrees with the prediction of GR, and yet GR is wrong on this one point, AND how your proposal actually predicts this will happen. i.e. what mechanism do you propose actually causes the light to bend, and how could you test it?

[Peron]

As human civilization, moves forward, we discover new things, we propose new ideas.

We expand, not only technologically but also mentally.

From Copernicus, to Newton, to Einstein. They brought us closer to understanding our universe. Where they wrong? No, they where right. They changed science.

 

But expansion does not stop, human thirst for knowledge continues. And it will continue for as long as humans are in existence.

Have we figured out the entire universe? No, of course not. We still have a lot to learn.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

We are like cave men trying to figure out what fire is. It's their burning, but what the hell is it!

 

We see all this happening all around us, but we cant even begin to comprehend what all this around us is.

 

We don't even know how space-time looks, let alone know how it works.

[antiaging]

Moved to pseudoscience.

 

Reality doesn't care what you believe. Reality is what it is -- and as far as we can tell, Einstein is right. Space and time are not nearly as simple as you would like them to be. There is overwhelming evidence in favor of relativity.

 

If Einstein's theories are wrong (and they probably are at some level), whatever comes along to replace them must still display things like time dilation and length contraction because those phenomena are very real.

 

General relativity, the theory dealing with space/time and gravity was proven to be correct experimentally. Based on his mathematics it was predicted that light passing close to the sun would be bent by gravity to a certain angle. During a solar eclipse, a star's position change as its light passed close to the sun was shown to prove the theory true.

Special relativity, the theory dealing with time and length contraction is based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. It is light being a constant that forces the length and time contraction. If the speed of light is not really a constant, then those contractions will not happen and the speed of light is not a barrier.

It was the michelson-morley experiment that was supposed to prove the speed of light to be a constant.

I have read on forums at times that light speed has been found to vary. I also believe the red shift in light from stars moving away from us proves the speed of light has slowed down in reaching us, and it is not a constant in all reference frames.

I also think the michelson morley experiment was not accurate enough when it was done to establish light speed to be a constant.

So I don't believe the length and time contractions to be true and I don't think the speed of light is a barrier.

[Depending on what you accept as evidence: UFOs coming to earth from outer space must be traveling faster then the speed of light. The aliens told Betty Hill in the Barney and Betty Hill incident that they had trading routes between stars, which require faster than light speed to do that.-- That is depending on what you accept as evidence.]

E=Mc2, was calculated from special relativity assuming the speed of light to be constant. The equation shows large energy release from a small ammount of mass, justifying the search for an atomic bomb, during WW2. But, the equation is still approximately true if light speed is not a constant, so that does not change anything.

[D H]

General relativity, the theory dealing with space/time and gravity was proven to be correct experimentally.

It depends on what you mean by "proved". If you mean it in the absolute, mathematical sense of proof, general relativity has not been proven to be correct. You need to understand how science works.

 

Science operates much the same way as does law. Short of a time machine that can look back into the past and view the actual commission of a crime after-the-fact, there is no way to conclusively prove that a person charged with the crime truly is guilty. Law operates on the premise of a preponderance of evidence. Science works much the same way.

 

That said, the evidence for special relativity is overwhelming, much more overwhelming than the evidence for general relativity. Just to name a few, particle colliders, observations of muons formed in the upper atmosphere, and last but not least, quantum electrodynamics. QED is one of the most accurately verified of all theories in physics.

 

It was the michelson-morley experiment that was supposed to prove the speed of light to be a constant.

Einstein didn't mention any of those experiments in his paper. He was a theoretician, after all. The motivation for Einstein's postulate was Maxwell's electrodynamics theory (aka Maxwell's equations). These equations describe the propagation of electromagnetic waves through space. The speed of the radiation is independent of the source and observer; it is constant. The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to prove Maxwell's theory wrong. It didn't work. It was a failed experiment.

 

I have read on forums at times that light speed has been found to vary.

There is a lot of crud out there on internet forums. Some of that crud is simply misinterpretation, some is deliberate misrepresentation.

 

I also think the michelson morley experiment was not accurate enough when it was done to establish light speed to be a constant.

Exactly wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to show the speed of light is not constant. It is one of the most famous failed experiment in all science.

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment was the first of several attempts to assess the constancy (or lack thereof) of the speed of light. Of course it's accuracy isn't all that good. It was the first. The results have been reproduced many, many times over since then, with ever increasing accuracy. While there is no way to unequivocally prove that the speed of light is constant, there is very little wiggle room. The constancy of the speed of light ranks right up there as one of the most accurately verified concepts in physics.

 

So I don't believe the length and time contractions to be true and I don't think the speed of light is a barrier.

Once again, reality doesn't care what you believe.