Is the theory of relativity correct?

[fo3]

Seeing so many threads here, that end up in discussions, whether the theory of relativity was right, I began to wonder how many people here actually believe that the theory is correct? This thread is not for arguing on the topic, but i was just wondering how many sceptics are there.

Feel free to post your reasons, why you voted like you voted, but try to hold back on criticizing others.

[MacM]

Seeing so many threads here, that end up in discussions, whether the theory of relativity was right, I began to wonder how many people here actually believe that the theory is correct? This thread is not for arguing on the topic, but i was just wondering how many sceptics are there.

Feel free to post your reasons, why you voted like you voted, but try to hold back on criticizing others.

I voted "Mostly correct but flawed". The fact of relativity is fairly well supported by data and some observations. However, there are indeed conflicts with its conclusions if followed to their logical and physical end, even though many refuse to do that.

[Ophiolite]

Which theory? Special Relativity or General Relativity?

[fo3]

both.

[QuarkHead]

Feel free to post your reasons, why you voted like you voted, but try to hold back on criticizing others.

This is insane! Does anybody out there really believe that any scientific model can be resolved by a show of hands?

If they do, they are on the wrong site (contains the word "science" remember?)

No scientist would seriously maintain for a moment that the great models we have (Newton, Darwin, Mendel, Einstein etc) may not be subject to future modification (they all have been), but - tell you what- it ain't based on a show of hands

Sorry fo3: I haven't indulged in personal abuse: only general

[marv]

[sermon]

I've never heard anyone, except maybe some religious zealot, claim Einstein to be ALL wrong. I have heard, however, Einstein referred to in almost god-like terms and that if it came from his mouth (read SRT and GT), it must absolutely, positively, unequivocably be the TRUTH!

I'm in the middle. Not only was Einstein human and subject to human frailties, he formed his theories in a world that saw only our galaxy as the universe. There was so much yet to be learned requiring modifications to his theories, e.g., Hubble's red shift.

If we, as humans seeking knowledge, learn nothing else, it should be that there is so much that we don't know and have yet to learn.

For me, his equivalance of gravitational mass and inertial energy is the most glaring mistake and it cascaded into other assumptions that we live with to this day. But I don't fault Einstein. He lived and worked in his time with the knowledge available to him then. We live today, and just look at what knowledge we've gained just since his death in 1955.

He shouldn't be treated as some saint, but the good work he has done should be built upon.

[/sermon]

[Quantum Quack]

I have taken the position that SRT can not be proved as false or true. IN that it is constructed in such a fashion that it has become a bit like the old religious arguement about the existence of God or arguments that the universe was created by design and not chance etc etc, an excersise in futility for sure.

Just imagine, one day it is proven that light doesn't have velocity, that light is more a gravitational effect than a photonic particle one. If true does this invalidate SRT. In it's intent and purpose maybe but in it's future value when adpated not so.

So I must also refrane from voting as I would suggest that at the moment it is impossible to say either way. IMHO

[fo3]

This is insane! Does anybody out there really believe that any scientific model can be resolved by a show of hands?

well, if anyone ever should think so, then we can just point them to this thread

[marv]

I think the intent of the question was not to determine the validity of the theory, but whether people think it valid or not.

[QuarkHead]

I think the intent of the question was not to determine the validity of the theory, but whether people think it valid or not.

My point exactly. Either the theory is valid or not - it doesn't matter whether people think so or not.

Or don't you believe there is an objective reality out there - only what people choose to believe?

I do

[Maddad]

You use relativity all the time in cell phones and GPS devices. They would give you inaccurate results if they were not adjusted for the effects of relativity.

[MacM]

You use relativity all the time in cell phones and GPS devices. They would give you inaccurate results if they were not adjusted for the effects of relativity.

You are only partically correct here. Yes GPS clocks are adjusted for time dilation due to gravity and motion. However, the motion adjustment is not relative to earth clocks but its pole. It is a preferred referance frame which violates SRT.

It is a Lorentz Relativity approach not Einstein.

[Vern]

I voted "mostly correct". Keep in mind that the fact of the actual phenomena of ralativity is not the same thing as the theory. I think the theory is wrong, but the fact is real. I think it was H Ziegler who explained to Einstein in 1906 that if the most elemental constituents of mass all moved at the speed of light, relativity phenomena would be a natural result of that.

Now if gauge bosons mediate the forces, as we suspect, and all guage bosons move at the invariable speed of light, wouldn't that by itself cause the relativity phenomena that we observe?

You can find H. Ziegler's comments published in "The World of Physics", by Weaver, Volume II, page 311.

[Maddad]

You are only partically correct here. Yes GPS clocks are adjusted for time dilation due to gravity and motion. However, the motion adjustment is not relative to earth clocks but its pole. It is a preferred referance frame which violates SRT. It is a Lorentz Relativity approach not Einstein.

Since there is no motion between the Earth's pole and the clocks on Earth, they are part of the same frame of reference, so there is can be no preference issue. The proof's in the pudding. Without adjusting for the motion between the satelites and points on the Earth, the computed distances from the time lags would be off slightly. If we adjust by the amount specified by special relativity, then the discrepancy goes away.

One thing I am not clear on though is the difference between a special relativity computation and a Lorentz one. I had thought that Einstein based special relativity on the Lorentz transformations. What am I missing?

[Quantum Quack]

I think it was H Ziegler who explained to Einstein in 1906 that if the most elemental constituents of mass all moved at the speed of light, relativity phenomena would be a natural result of that.

Funny....this is what I have been trying to exlain for ages.

Do you have any links that may be useful Vern regards H Ziegler?

[Vern]

I have searched for more of H. Ziegler's work without success. The most I could find was the link you posted in another thread.

[MacM]

Since there is no motion between the Earth's pole and the clocks on Earth, they are part of the same frame of reference, so there is can be no preference issue. The proof's in the pudding. Without adjusting for the motion between the satelites and points on the Earth, the computed distances from the time lags would be off slightly. If we adjust by the amount specified by special relativity, then the discrepancy goes away.

One thing I am not clear on though is the difference between a special relativity computation and a Lorentz one. I had thought that Einstein based special relativity on the Lorentz transformations. What am I missing?

What you are missing is simple. The adjustment required for orbiting clocks has to do with their motion but not with respect to other clocks on earth. The pole has no relative velocity in the line of sight to the orbiting clock but the orbiting clock has velocity.

So what GPS is trying to tell you is that Lorentz was more correct than Einstein.

[Persol]

So what GPS is trying to tell you is that Lorentz was more correct than Einstein.

For those who care about facts:
1) GPS uses a 'a preferred reference' (a frame in which the calculations are done).
2) Using a preferred reference frame does NOT violate relativity.
3) Saying that only the point of view of one frame is correct, 'an absolute frame', violates relativity.
4) This says nothing about Lorentz relativity vs Einstein relativity.

If someone is going to deam this reply off-topic, delete the initial comment as well.

[PhysMachine]

I would just like to point out that, aside from QED, general relativity has accurately predicted physical phenomena more accurately than any previous physical theory.

[MacM]

For those who care about facts:
1) GPS uses a 'a preferred reference' (a frame in which the calculations are done).
2) Using a preferred reference frame does NOT violate relativity.
3) Saying that only the point of view of one frame is correct, 'an absolute frame', violates relativity.
4) This says nothing about Lorentz relativity vs Einstein relativity.

If someone is going to deam this reply off-topic, delete the initial comment as well.

*************
http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/498_90.html

This startling fact has several important implications. Just as in Galilean transformations, there is no "true" or preferred frame of reference
*************

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0264-9...cq16004l2.html

Gravitational preferred frames and Earth satellite orbits
*************

So much for fiat and distortion. GPS does not use relative velocity between clocks. GPS does not and cannot support reciprocity claimed by Relativity.

Orbiting clocks dilate because they have velocity but not relative to the point of reference. You cannot assign a velocity to the earth's pole and claim the orbiting clock is at rest. The calculations fail the test of reality.

GPS does show a preference of Lorentz Relativity over Einstein's Relativity.