What would it take to prove Albert Einstein Wrong?

dumbest man on earth said:
The First(and most important) step would be to get properly educated in Albert Einstein's theories. Learned to the point of fully understanding and fully comprehending those theories to the "nth degree"!

Once you have achieved the level of adeptness or proficiency to even hope to be capable of proving Albert Einstein's theories wrong, you would know exactly what it would take to do so...you would NOT have to ask.
Click to expand...
Yes of course...
I have to rely on expert opinion as i don't have the 20 odd years of study required.
So when experts state that a phenonema has occurred or is observable, outside of known physics, I take it seriously. Seriously enough to at least do further research. They use the word "anomaly" for a reason.
Basically it is the observed phenonema that disproves a theory not some half arsed attempt with a white board....and a pocket calculator.
 
Last edited:
QQ, I don't know if you are retired or not. I think maybe you've indicated that to be the case.

Were you able to function in the outside world during your working life? I don't picture you working though a mainstream degree and functioning in that world. Am I incorrect?
 
Seattle said:
QQ, I don't know if you are retired or not. I think maybe you've indicated that to be the case.

Were you able to function in the outside world during your working life? I don't picture you working though a mainstream degree and functioning in that world. Am I incorrect?
Click to expand...
Do you have anything to contribute to the topic or not?
 
Quantum Quack said:
Do you have anything to contribute to the topic or not?
Click to expand...
I've already contributed more than you have. If you can show that the maximum speed of light isn't fixed and that it can be exceeded then Einstein was wrong.

How are you contributing by wondering what it would take to overturn Einstein's theory if you don't understand the theory. What makes you think it needs to be overturned when you don't understand the theory?

That's not making a contribution. I'm trying to figure out if those in your class of posting are just outside the mainstream world even in everyday life and career.

It would help explain some of the posts and the motivations behind those posts.
 
Seattle said:
I've already contributed more than you have. If you can show that the maximum speed of light isn't fixed and that it can be exceeded then Einstein was wrong.

How are you contributing by wondering what it would take to overturn Einstein's theory if you don't understand the theory. What makes you think it needs to be overturned when you don't understand the theory?

That's not making a contribution. I'm trying to figure out if those in your class of posting are just outside the mainstream world even in everyday life and career.

It would help explain some of the posts and the motivations behind those posts.
Click to expand...
I think a mathematical proof that the Lorentz transform is invalid would be futile in this fora.... don't you?
 
Quantum Quack said:
Why do you think it is about me?
When it is probably more about you....
Click to expand...
Because you continue to spew nonsense. You constantly say that you aren't an "expert" and it would take 20 years to become one. Yet, you don't take the time to read even one textbook on any subject that you expound upon. Not even a GR for dummies kind of a book. Nothing. Why is that?

All you got is usually to say "It's not about me". It clearly is about you.
 
Seattle said:
Show that the maximum speed of light isn't an absolute. Show that something can travel faster than the speed of light.
Click to expand...
Yet both those, if I'm not mistaken, were postulates before Einstein formulated SR/GR and indepedant of SR. We could also raise the equivalence principal and/or acceleration/gravity principals. which I believe actually rose from SR/GR.
 
Seattle said:
Because you continue to spew nonsense. You constantly say that you aren't an "expert" and it would take 20 years to become one. Yet, you don't take the time to read even one textbook on any subject that you expound upon. Not even a GR for dummies kind of a book. Nothing. Why is that?

All you got is usually to say "It's not about me". It clearly is about you.
Click to expand...
What nonsense are you refering to?
 
paddoboy said:
Yet both those, if I'm not mistaken, were postulates before Einstein formulated SR/GR and indepedant of SR. We could also raise the equivalence principal and/or acceleration/gravity principals. which I believe actually rose from SR/GR.
Click to expand...
Einstein also raises concerns about inertia and how this inertial relationship appears faster than light speed if not instantaneous.
 
paddoboy said:
Yet both those, if I'm not mistaken, were postulates before Einstein formulated SR/GR and indepedant of SR. We could also raise the equivalence principal and/or acceleration/gravity principals. which I believe actually rose from SR/GR.
Click to expand...
Yet, they are necessary for SR/GR and overturning that would certainly do.
 
Seattle said:
Because you continue to spew nonsense. You constantly say that you aren't an "expert" and it would take 20 years to become one. Yet, you don't take the time to read even one textbook on any subject that you expound upon. Not even a GR for dummies kind of a book. Nothing. Why is that?

All you got is usually to say "It's not about me". It clearly is about you.
Click to expand...
Nope. Definitely about you.
 
Seattle said:
Yet, they are necessary for SR/GR and overturning that would certainly do.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying otherwise...I'm simply saying both were postulates before SR, was formulated. And the equivalence principal and acceleration/gravity did arise from relativity.
Overturning "c" and the no FTL postulates would do far more then just over turn GR...How whole structure and modeling of spacetime, along with contradictory observations that would arise would be the result.
 
paddoboy said:
I'm not saying otherwise...I'm simply saying both were postulates before SR, was formulated. And the equivalence principal and acceleration/gravity did arise from relativity.
Overturning "c" and the no FTL postulates would do far more then just over turn GR...How whole structure and modeling of spacetime, along with contradictory observations that would arise would be the result.
Click to expand...
It depends on exactly what you are meaning by overturning the in-variance of 'c'.
Matter, energy, information etc...
Quantum entanglement may appear to do such over turning but strictly speaking I do not think it does.
However Quantum Entanglement does seem highly suggestive that there is more to space time than what Einstein may have suggested.
Minkowski/Einstein space time may prove valid and coexist with another layer of space time or just space, that facilitates Quantum Entanglement with out violating the postulates etc.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Einstein also raises concerns about inertia and how this inertial relationship appears faster than light speed if not instantaneous.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by that? Inertia is in any case an ambiguous idea. It can refer to mass or momentum or moment of inertia, depending on the context.
 
exchemist said:
What do you mean by that? Inertia is in any case an ambiguous idea. It can refer to mass or momentum or moment of inertia, depending on the context.
Click to expand...
It was in reference to a discussion between Einstein and Ernst Mach, if I recall correctly...
Essentially Einstein was pondering on the inertial relationship between bodies in the same frame....and how this could be so...
I'll see if I can dig up the correspondence and post it later...
 
Quantum Quack said:
It was in reference to a discussion between Einstein and Ernst Mach, if I recall correctly...
Essentially Einstein was pondering on the inertial relationship between bodies in the same frame....and how this could be so...
I'll see if I can dig up the correspondence and post it later...
Click to expand...
Ok. It's the notion of an "inertial relationship", whatever that is, being in some way faster than light that I can't understand. But if it was in correspondence with Mach, I feel fairly certain it was resolved by the development of relativity, rather than remaining a problem within it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top