I need some information

[HIENVN]

Hey guys come on, let him try - it's an important part of science to re-examine old theories and, when they cannot be disproved, they are made stronger. By having him examine Einstein's relativity, he will either disprove it (very unlikely, but will help science by eliminating a false theory) or he will discover that it is true(very likely, and will help him understand the theory more completely and will bolster the overall strength of the theory).

 

Thanks pgrmdave,

You understood the policy of our science forums.

[InfiniteNow]

I think that imaplanck. is simply expressing justified skepticism at the expectation of somebody overthrowing any widely accepted scientific theory. And I share with ima's skepticism, and would expect there to be a lot of skepticism if I were Mewskitty.

Valid point, dave. Thank you. My interpretation (based on the tone of the poster I'd encountered elsewhere in these forums) was "a kid can't do it. Why should he even try?"

 

Either way, it is a tough task, and it should be fostered with encouragement and accuracy wherever possible.

 

Mewskitty, anything new?

[HIENVN]

While I understand the lack of effort it takes to accept a strong theory as unfalsifiable, your comment above shows an absolute disregard for, disrespect, and misunderstanding of the scientific method.

 

-Why do you say relativity theory is a scientific method? The 1921’s Commissioner for Nobel Prizes confirmed relativity theory is not a scientific theory and Einstein recognized this in his last life.

-Relativity theory gave everyone a freedom in their mind; in event they say relativity theory is wrong!

[HIENVN]

Valid point, dave. Thank you. My interpretation (based on the tone of the poster I'd encountered elsewhere in these forums) was "a kid can't do it. Why should he even try?"

 

Either way, it is a tough task, and it should be fostered with encouragement and accuracy wherever possible.

 

Mewskitty, anything new?

 

Somebody else will prove the wrong of relativity theory if Mewskitty cannot prove.

[Tormod]

Somebody else will prove the wrong of relativity theory if Mewskitty cannot prove.

 

Nobody will prove the relativity theory wrong. Someone here has the entire scientific method upside down.

 

It's okay to confuse science with religion, but it's worth learning why there is a difference. Trying to disprove relativity is probably the least useful way to increase knowledge.

 

Finding an alternative theory, or *improving upon* relativity theory, is more likely IMHO.

[InfiniteNow]

Just like Einstein improved on Newton's ideas... Newtonian physics was not proven wrong, just not applicable to all contexts. Einstein's theories did what Newton's did, and more.

 

As Tormod says, relativity will not be proven wrong, it will be replaced with something that does the same things and more.

 

 

HIEVN, your last few comments imply to me that you've misunderstood the posts I've made. Cheers. :shrug:

[CraigD]

Trying to disprove relativity is probably the least useful way to increase knowledge.

 

While I agree that attempting to “disprove” theories with predictions that are well confirmed by observation (such as Relativity) tend to be un-useful to the knowledge of the scientific community in general, failing in such attempts may, as programmerdave suggests, be very educational to the individual student.

 

Relativity is very counterintuitive. Many – perhaps most – competent students have doubted its validity, and attempted to uncover the flaws that intuition suggest must exist with it. As each search for a flaw fails, the student’s intuition improves, until the theory starts making sense.

 

It’s essential, however, for the student to keep a truly open mind, neither accepting on faith the theory’s validity, nor accepting on faith its lack of validity. In particular, accepting Relativity based on the belief that a famous scientist (such as Einstein), accepted it, or rejecting it based on the belief that a famous scientist rejected it (oddly, this is also often ascribed to Einstein) is, IMHO, an unwise and unscientific approach.

[ughaibu]

Michael Huemer offers a proof that relativity is false, I dont know anything substantial about relativity so I cant say whether it's interesting or not: Why Relativity and QM are False

[pgrmdave]

Relativity seems to not hold up at the micro level, and "spooky action at a distance" does seem to refute the idea that no information can travel faster than light. However, relativity seems to work very well at macro levels, where quantum mechanics can't yet explain gravity. We know that relativity is incomplete, but that does not mean it's "wrong".

[CraigD]

Michael Huemer offers a proof that relativity is false, I dont know anything substantial about relativity so I cant say whether it's interesting or not: Why Relativity and QM are False

In the literature of Relativity refutations, Huemer’s argument is unusually coherent and well-written, and shows a good acquaintance with modern physics.

 

Briefly, this argument is

1. Relativity prohibits instantaneous (infinitely fast) communication
   
2. Entangled particles appear to communicate instantaneously
   
3. Therefore “the theory of relativity is false”
   

The core of this argument is a thought experiment in which 2 friends play the role of two entangled particles (specifically, photons), while 2 questioners play the role of polarizer-particle detector measuring devices. The friends may discuss and arrive at any strategy for answering the questioners, but don’t know which of 3 questions, corresponding to 3 possible orientations of the polorizer, each questioner will ask. It argues, soundly, that the friends cannot possible find a strategy that will result in observations that agree statistically with the same observation performed using actual photons.

 

The flaw of the argument is the assumption that entangled particles can be modeled with human beings, or any macroscopic information-storing scheme. It appeals directly to intuition, with language like “hey, you're [you and your friend] smarter than a couple of photons”. This appeal to intuition is, however, a trick, disingenuous, and a logical fallacy – although a clever and convincing (to someone with little familiarity with modern physics) one.

[HIENVN]

Nobody will prove the relativity theory wrong. Someone here has the entire scientific method upside down.

 

It's okay to confuse science with religion, but it's worth learning why there is a difference. Trying to disprove relativity is probably the least useful way to increase knowledge.

 

Finding an alternative theory, or *improving upon* relativity theory, is more likely IMHO.

 

-There are two contexts in Einstein’s relativity theory that he introduced in 1905:

1/ Context of space-time: shows positions of matter in the universe that everyone cannot disclaim it.

2/ Context of energy: shows energy of matter in the universe that almost scientists have recognized it. However, I disclaim this context because it violently opposes the law of conservation of energy. I knew some posts of you and C1ay that these posts tried to prove the right of Einstein’s energy equation with the experiment of professors of NIST and MIT… I have spent time to study for this experiment and I am worrying to say this experiment was wrong! (although I respect the professor of NIST and MIT.) I am preparing to write a new thread to prove the wrong of professors of NIST and MIT in their experiment.

Although relativity theory is right in the context of space-time, but this theory would be wrong in the context of energy. The wrong of relativity theory (in the context of energy) is the cause that has prevented the progress of future science.

-I know your idea is a protection for relativity theory that you believed is all right, but I wish you will listen and consult some ideas that relativity theory is wrong. I would like to tell with you that the relativity theory is wrong or right is just relativity.

[HIENVN]

Just like Einstein improved on Newton's ideas... Newtonian physics was not proven wrong, just not applicable to all contexts. Einstein's theories did what Newton's did, and more.

 

As Tormod says, relativity will not be proven wrong, it will be replaced with something that does the same things and more.

 

 

HIEVN, your last few comments imply to me that you've misunderstood the posts I've made. Cheers. :xx:

 

-You should consult the history of Einstein before you tell about him.

There are two steps in Einstein studies:

1/ 1905-1921: Einstein introduced relativity theory that he had supported for quantum theory. Einstein believed he won Newton’s ideas with his 1915’s general relativity theory.

2/ 1921- 1945: Einstein introduced unified field theory in which he rejected quantum theory (that almost scientist think Einstein was wrong.) Unified field theory would display the genius of Einstein to the universe that he know quantum theory and relativity theory are not enough to help scientists understand our universe. The universe should be understood by scientists if they try to rethink the exclusive value of Newton’s ideas.

- Relativity theory would have some right and wrong that we would be known to debate about this theory. Nobody can improve relativity theory if he/she does not know the wrong (or lack) of this theory. My subject is present a wrong/lack of relativity theory that an improvement or a rejection to this relativity theory would be depend on our excellent members.

[HIENVN]

Relativity seems to not hold up at the micro level, and "spooky action at a distance" does seem to refute the idea that no information can travel faster than light. However, relativity seems to work very well at macro levels, where quantum mechanics can't yet explain gravity. We know that relativity is incomplete, but that does not mean it's "wrong".

 

-Quantum theory and relativity theory (if relativity theory is right) can not explain gravity, because these theories are just two links on a chain of the universe. The third link to explain the gravity is an exclusive theory of classical mechanics.

-I think relativity theory has some right (in the scope of space-time) and some wrong (in the scope of energy), and then we can say relativity theory is wrong because a right theory should be 100% right!

[HIENVN]

Michael Huemer offers a proof that relativity is false, I dont know anything substantial about relativity so I cant say whether it's interesting or not: Why Relativity and QM are False

 

-Relativity theory is false because its exclusive manner in Einstein’s equation that Michael Huemer did not know to prove it.

- QM (quantum mechanics) can not wrong because our scientists will have nothing to do if this theory is wrong. QM is just wrong because scientists of quantum theory tried to prove relativity theory is right. Anyone who wants to prove a wrong theory is right should be wrong!

[imaplanck.]

-Relativity theory is false because its exclusive manner in Einstein’s equation that Michael Huemer did not know to prove it.

- QM (quantum mechanics) can not wrong because our scientists will have nothing to do if this theory is wrong. QM is just wrong because scientists of quantum theory tried to prove relativity theory is right. Anyone who wants to prove a wrong theory is right should be wrong!

 

There appears to be atleast two definite trend in the people who still insist on smearing Einsteins reputation, always without substance(I must add).

 

 

I will deam it a miracle if any of the knockers can comprehend what I'm saying without me getting a piece of chalk out.

[Praveen]

Hi,

 

The sum of the relative velocities of matter in space will not exceed the velocity of light or electromagnetic radiation which is c (3,00,000 Km/Sec). This is because of the structure of the universe/space and its composition.

 

May be in some other universe which is disjoint from our universe the maximum velocity may (?) be greater than "c" or even less then "c". I don't know, this is only my hypothesis.

 

So there is no point in proving Einstein wrong because the speed of light is due to the structure of our universe/space.

 

Regards

[HIENVN]

In the literature of Relativity refutations, Huemer’s argument is unusually coherent and well-written, and shows a good acquaintance with modern physics.

 

Briefly, this argument is

1. Relativity prohibits instantaneous (infinitely fast) communication
   
2. Entangled particles appear to communicate instantaneously
   
3. Therefore “the theory of relativity is false”
   

The core of this argument is a thought experiment in which 2 friends play the role of two entangled particles (specifically, photons), while 2 questioners play the role of polarizer-particle detector measuring devices. The friends may discuss and arrive at any strategy for answering the questioners, but don’t know which of 3 questions, corresponding to 3 possible orientations of the polorizer, each questioner will ask. It argues, soundly, that the friends cannot possible find a strategy that will result in observations that agree statistically with the same observation performed using actual photons.

 

The flaw of the argument is the assumption that entangled particles can be modeled with human beings, or any macroscopic information-storing scheme. It appeals directly to intuition, with language like “hey, you're [you and your friend] smarter than a couple of photons”. This appeal to intuition is, however, a trick, disingenuous, and a logical fallacy – although a clever and convincing (to someone with little familiarity with modern physics) one.

 

Although Michael Huemer posted a “trick proof” that “the theory of relativity is false,” but his/her “trick” proof does not mean “the theory of relativity theory is right.”

Michael Huemer gathered some errors when he/she joined the failure between quantum theory and relativity theory, and when he/she showed the failure of relativity theory in the scope of space-time that relativity theory is absolutely right!

The wrong of relativity theory should be dealt in the scope of energy with Einstein’s equation, which is proved is right to 99, 94% by experiment of professors of NIST and MIT. I am surprising why we believe NIST and MIT can prove the right of Einstein’s equation while the professors of NIST and MIT reached a critical mistake in their experiment. Although I respect the professors of NIST and MIT, but I think they should learn more the universe before they organize any experiment in their laboratories.

I’ll have a new thread to show the failure of NIST and MIT when their professors tried to prove a right of Einstein’s equation.