Is Relativity Wrong?

[Windevoid]

Is Relativity Wrong?

I see in all of these space and physics documentaries on TV
that Einstein-this Einstein-that.

But then I saw that there are lots of YouTube videos
claiming to disprove special relativity and/or general relativity.

Videos such as:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em6ukitZ9wE

 

Is there any truth to these claims? If relativity somehow is
true, then how can it be claimed to be false so much in so many different ways
by so many different people?

Edited June 24, 2013 by Windevoid

[hypervalent_iodine]

I don't know terribly much about relativity myself, but I assume that the reason so many different people claim it to be false for so many different reasons because so many different people don't really understand what's going on (but think they do). The theory of evolution suffers from much the same problem.

[D H]

Is there any truth to these claims? If relativity somehow is

true, then how can it be claimed to be false so much in so many different ways

by so many different people?

 

There is no truth to those claims.

 

So what explains all of that nonsense against it? Some ultra-religious people think relativity must be wrong because it clashes with their religion. Some racists think that relativity must be wrong because a Jewish man came up with it. Some crackpots think that "if only I disprove relativity I will be more famous than Einstein".

[ACG52]

Relativity has been experimentally and observationally confirmed to an astounding degree. The reason you see so many youtubes denying the validity of relativity is because the are an astounding number of cranks in the world, and anybody can post any nonsense on youtube.

[Bignose]

A list of many of the extensive agreements between predictions made by the theory of relativity and actual observations is given here: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/

 

If someone doesn't like the theory of relativity, that's fine. They just need to demonstrate that their idea can go an even better job that what we have now. Science is actually very, very simple in this regard. Demonstrate that some new idea makes more accurate or more predictions than what we have now, and what we have now will be displaced. The vast, vast majority of people who feel a need to replace an idea however don't have anything that makes more accurate or more predictions. Again, science is very simple to understand in this regard... more predictions and accurate predictions wins.

[swansont]

I haven't watched the videos, but from participation here it's clear that the majority of anti-relativity crackpots don't understand the theory itself. There's an underlying fallacious view that if the individual doesn't understand it (or it offends their sensibilities) then it can't be right, and that absolute time/length/simultaneity "makes sense" and that must be right.

[Delta1212]

I watched the one video and made it about an hour in before the lecture on the history of electricity switched too far over into whackadoo pseudoscience and conspiracy theories for me to bother sitting through any more of it waiting for the challenge to relativity to finally get outlined.

 

When you claim that a machine was designed in the 1800s that would allow you to stand in two locations simultaneously, and then seriously consider a question about whether this could be related to the Philadelphia Experiment, that is the point where you lose me.

[krash661]

i agree with alex.

 

simple.

[DimaMazin]

We can not simply deceive scientists, therefore we should be more subtle.

[Windevoid]

I always thought relativity seemed ridiculous, like something a bad writer made up to cover a plot hole.

I don’t think relativity makes sense.

I might be wrong, but can I really be wrong about this?

[ACG52]

Relativity, both Special and General, is one the most tested theories in science, and has been verified to an astonishing degree.

 

I might be wrong, but can I really be wrong about this?

Not only can you be wrong, but you are wrong.

 

Your argument against it is basically argument by incredulity. i.e. You don't understand it, so it must be wrong.

Edited June 28, 2013 by ACG52

[Windevoid]

Has anyone tried to move something faster than light?

Has anyone tried to go faster than light?

Or have they only used light itself.

I mean, water waves from the same source seem to go at the same speed regardless of source, but a jet plane can go faster than water waves and it doesn't do some voodoo thing.

[ACG52]

Sure. They tried it with neutrinos. It didn't work.

 

Are you simply saying that you won't accept relativity regardless of the observational and experimental results? Cause if that's the case, there's no point in trying to teach you anything.

[Windevoid]

if light were to get sucked in by a black hole, then wouldn't it go faster than light?

[ACG52]

if light were to get sucked in by a black hole, then wouldn't it go faster than light?

No.

[Windevoid]

No.

Why not? Would it gain mass and not be light? But it's non-massy light right? Or not? Paradox?

 

Why not? Would it gain mass and not be light? But it's non-massy light right? Or not? Paradox?

 

And there's another reason to believe relativity is wrong. It's the only "science" to have paradoxes, and in such quantities.

[Janus]

Why not? Would it gain mass and not be light? But it's non-massy light right? Or not? Paradox?

 

Why not? Would it gain mass and not be light? But it's non-massy light right? Or not? Paradox?

 

It would gain energy, and in doing so increase it's frequency and shorten its wavelength. It's speed however would remain unchanged.

[Windevoid]

It would gain energy, and in doing so increase it's frequency and shorten its wavelength. It's speed however would remain unchanged.

Uh, then its mass would have to increase.

 

If E=MC squared then light would have to have mass, but then it couldn't do the things that light is said to be able to do, because that is dependent on light not having mass.

[ACG52]

E=mc^{2 is not the complete equation.}

 

^{e2= m2c4+p2c2} is the complete form. For light, the first term m (rest mass) is zero, so the equation simplifies to e = pc, where p is momentum.

[Windevoid]

Isn't momentum mass times velocity?

[Janus]

Uh, then its mass would have to increase.

 

If E=MC squared then light would have to have mass, but then it couldn't do the things that light is said to be able to do, because that is dependent on light not having mass.

 

 

For photons, energy is found by

 

[math]E = \frac{hc}{\lambda}[/math]

 

where h is Planck's constant and lambda is the wavelength.

 

The general formula for both zero and non-zero rest mass objects is

 

[math]E = \sqrt{m_o^2c^4+p^2c^2}[/math]

 

Where [math]m_o[/math] is the rest mass.

 

For light

 

[math]p= \frac{h}{\lambda}[/math]

and the rest mass is zero.

 

When one talks about light being massless, it is its rest mass that is 0.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Janus

[D H]

Isn't momentum mass times velocity?

 

No.

[swansont]

 

Why not?

 

Because photons always travel at c.

 

Would it gain mass and not be light?

 

No. The mass does not change.

 

But it's non-massy light right? Or not?

 

Right.

 

Paradox?

 

No.

 

And there's another reason to believe relativity is wrong. It's the only "science" to have paradoxes, and in such quantities.

 

No. The so-called paradoxes only arise because of incorrect application of the theory. These "paradoxes" abound in math e.g. in the trick questions where you divide by zero. No paradox when you eliminate the "illegal" step.

[krash661]

it's probably best if you make an attempt to at lease study and understand basic physics and such

before stepping up to advance issues like this,

i see this a lot,
individuals will jump to relativity before even understanding basic physics,

i think hypervalent iodine makes a great point.

but I assume that the reason so many different people claim it to be false for so many different reasons because so many different people don't really understand what's going on (but think they do).

[Prophet12]

We understand General Relativity, GR is wrong as it is presently written with a constant that predicts expansion, period.

 

Bignose's post -demonstrate 'more accurate or more predictions' and 'will be displaced' -is correct.

 

Snell's theory does demonstrate, more accurate, better predictions, so as to disprove present GR and more perfectly match theory/science with the universe/mass/space etc.

 

The questions about relativity are not just because some dont understand, its because they do and GR presently does not make sence/logic etc. in the real universe; it leads to too many mysteries-inventions-necessities etc.

 

Snell's theory addresses it all, and supplies the answers, scientifically.

 

The questions by many have been posed, now the answers (Snell's Theory) has been supplied; its all for a reason, if you care to reason.

 

Peace