Is Einstein Wrong?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Rick, Oct 24, 2001.

  1. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    Einstein said that there is no preferred frame of reference,now suppose i am holding a bucket full of water and rolling it vertically,since there is no preferred frame i can consider the bucket full of water as my frame of reference and stationary,so now according to Einstein the whole cosmos is moving with repect to my bucket,Round and Round.but the water inside the bucket moves in a fashion that shows that bucket IS moving. does that mean that Einstein has gone wrong somewhere?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,376
    No. Einstein is right. From the point of view of the bucket, there is a gravitational force which keeps the water in the bottom of the bucket. The strength of that force varies a little as the universe rotates around the bucket (if it is swung in a vertical plane).

    Einstein says acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    111
    gee wiz....

    It's all relative you know.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong."

    -Albert Einstein


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Zion,

    Of course Einstein was wrong. The only theory I heard that was more absurd than his Theory of Relativity is the Chaos Theory. Maybe he should have left physics to his wife, who was smarter than he was.

    Tom
     
  8. Weitzel Simon Fraser University Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    51
    When you question whether Einstein was wrong I assume you mean his theories. Relativity has been confirmed countless times since it was first posited. I am of the belief that, given time (I'd guess late twenty-first century, so within the next hundred years), a new way of thinking will overturn Einstein's theories, but I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that Einstein's theories can ever be said to be "wrong." Newton's laws still apply perfectly well for most activities that happen in every day life. Another theory may overturn Einstein's in the same way Einstein's overturned Newton's, but his laws will still apply.

    This is getting off-topic but one new theory I've read about recently is that the universe is composed of information and can be measured in bits (yes it's understandable this would come about during our current age of a computerized society). Discussing black holes, it relates thermodynamics and entropy with information. Another theory suggests the universe is timeless, and that the passage of time is but an illusion. Each new "Now" or moment is but one of a myriad of instants of a configuration space, each different. This later theory actually agrees with general relativity, and the book gets into details on how Einstein didn't go far enough into his own theory. I don't know that I agree with either but I thought I'd share them, cool ideas.
     
  9. Weitzel,

    We live in a universe where subatomic particles can have many dimensions. Each dimension is a factor in the "Grand Formula". If someone, like Einstein, doesn't have all the factors they create imaginary factors. Einstein's imaginary factor was "relativity". Heisenberg's imaginary factor was "uncertainty". They just made these up to suit their theories. Here is an example of one of Einstein's flawed theories:

    "Gravity is the result of bent or warped space"

    Sounds real cool unless you take the following into consideration:

    A negative electric charge will revolve around a positive electric charge. Is space bending here as well? Send a neutron between the two and see what happens to the neutron. What?? Nothing happened to the neutron, I guess space isn't bent by charged particles.

    Well if space isn't bent by charged particles, why would it be bent by mass?

    I guess Einstein just created his "bent space theory" because it sounds neat.

    Tom
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,376
    <i>Well if space isn't bent by charged particles, why would it be bent by mass?
    I guess Einstein just created his "bent space theory" because it sounds neat.</i>

    There's a little more to General Relativity than you make out, actually. The difference between gravity and electromagnetism is that if you jump out the window gravity disappears (for you), but electromagnetism doesn't. That idea leads to the Principle of Equivalence, which in turn leads to General Relativity, with the whole curved spacetime thing.

    It doesn't just sound neat. It provides a solid, testable, mathematically sound description of the observed universe.

    How's your knowledge of tensors and Riemann geometry?
     
  11. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    It is absurd to say that a theory is wrong. A theory is usefull or not usefull.

    There are experiments that contradict Einstein's ideas, but there many others that sustain it.
    So sometimes it usefull and sometimes not.

    It has been found that when sending a beam of light around the world, one time with the earth's rotation and the other time in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation, that the latter is SLOWER (to do the experiment there's no need to really send the beam around the earth).
    According to Einstein this cannot happen. But it does. So the theory (in this case SRT) is not usefull in this situation but modern aether science and other theories are (Newton & Lorentz etc.).

    There has been investigation in regard to the bending of light and a great number of scientists have found that there is no bending at all.
    And even if it were, there are a number of other theories around who predict the same thing.

    It's just a human thing to make an Icon out of something and then go and fight all the stuff that goes against it.

    If you ask me, Einsteinian science has been usefull and will be, but we can do better and there is better.
    A theory of Everyrhing cannot be developped because of the paradigma of Relativity. So-called Peer review, dogmatic reactions, etc. is making it impossible for many scientists to carry out their research when this is not compatible with relativity.
     
  12. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    James,


    When did i start this thread?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    bye!
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,376
    zion:

    On 10-24-01 at 05:53 PM, apparently. But why ask me?


    c'est moi:

    <i>It has been found that when sending a beam of light around the world, one time with the earth's rotation and the other time in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation, that the latter is SLOWER (to do the experiment there's no need to really send the beam around the earth). According to Einstein this cannot happen.</i>

    Can you provide a reference for this, please? It sounds interesting. Was frame dragging taken into account?

    <i>There has been investigation in regard to the bending of light and a great number of scientists have found that there is no bending at all.</i>

    How do you account for the many observed gravitational lensing effects seen with telescopes?

    <i>So-called Peer review, dogmatic reactions, etc. is making it impossible for many scientists to carry out their research when this is not compatible with relativity.</i>

    But all we need is one observation which contradicts the predictions of relativity and it's back to the old drawing board.
     
  14. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    there should be nothing that should termed as theory.everything has to be proved hypothesis.or it should be Axiom.


    Now James,

    Ridlle me this.
    suppose an astronaut experiencing "weightlessness" in space tries the experiment with a glass of water.unless he has some skill the water will soon fly about the space ship.instead let the astronaut swing an object at the end of the string.the string will become stretched.another object would see the string tighten ,the spaceship whirling about him and if he could look out a window.According to Einstein the whirling astronaut must explain the tightness of the string using the same laws of physicsas his fellow astronauts.According to Einstein all motion is relative and all observers are entitled to observe and think of themselves at being rest.

    real test perhaps of this situation would beto have first astronaut hold the object on the end of the string without twirling it.the object would float about with the string limp.then we would cause everything except the object to rotate:the astronauts,the spaceship,the star what would happen?According to Einstein the string would become tight.conversely if there were no were no astraonauts,stars,nebula,the swinging of the object would not have made the string tight in some place.the inertial mass of universe"does something" to space-time where the experiment is performed,any time that an object is swung relative to rest of the universe,the string becomes tight.both astronauts agree that the object is rotating relative to the rest of the universe!


    bye!
     
  15. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    AWW comeon you know why...you were the one who answered first and then blank...no response...untill yesterday...when it rose like pheonix...


    hahahahahaaa...

    bye!
     
  16. James R

    I sure hope that if I jumped out a window that gravity would disappear.

    Tom
     
  17. Weitzel Simon Fraser University Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    51
  18. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    Oh no!

    there is nothing such as is preferred frame of reference

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    so you know your jumping is not true from other frame of references.you are only applying force and the cosmos actually moves backwards to allow you to fall from window...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    bye!
     
  19. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    James R, you've clearly not understood what I've said
    therefore there's no need to reply to your questions
     
  20. Weitzel Simon Fraser University Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    51
    c'est moi: I too would like it if you could provide a reference for this supposed evidence opposing Einstein's relativity. I think you must have made an error, or the experiment was in error, otherwise more of us would have heard about this...

    There has been evidence found showing the incompleteness of other theories, perhaps--such as the current absence of the Higgs Boson suggesting the Standard Model's incompleteness--but Einstein's general relativity has withstood the tests of time as far as I know.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,376
    Joeblow:

    Imagine that when you jump out the window you're encased in a box - an elevator-like container. There is no experiment you can do <i>while you're falling</i> which will tell you there is a planet below your elevator box. You can't distinguish in any way a falling elevator from an elevator floating in space far from the Earth. As far as you are concerned, gravity has vanished.


    c'est moi:

    Fair enough. It's your choice. Let the readers judge for themselves whether there are gaps in your assertions.


    zion:

    I don't control whether people reply to a thread or not.

    Regarding your scenario with the astronauts etc. - I agree that it is possible to detect rotation relative to the outside universe.
     
  22. James R,

    What would it matter what I perceive anyway? Sooner or later I'd discover the truth(when the box hits the ground).

    Tom
     
  23. c'est moi all is energy and entropy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    583
    "I too would like it if you could provide a reference for this supposed evidence opposing Einstein's relativity. I think you must have made an error, or the experiment was in error, otherwise more of us would have heard about this..."

    I've read about it here Marmet
    and in different sources which I can't provide you because I've never written it down

    your reply suggests very strongly that you underestimate the role of interpretation in science COMPLETELY, and that's not very goodd for someone related to university in some way( it's below your nick)

    you'd fall of your chair if you'd know how many scientists around the world do not agree fully/partially with relativity, some of them forming organisations, some of them keeping silence and just carry out their job
    it's the interpretation of the data, you see, so it is complete nonsense to say that relativity has withstand the test so far
     

Share This Page