What would it take to prove Albert Einstein theories wrong?
I would think that providing an alternative would not be necessary.
Any one?
I would think that providing an alternative would not be necessary.
Any one?
Last edited:
Wrong about what?What would it take to prove Albert Einstein wrong?
Any one?
Sorry about that.. see edit..OPWrong about what?
That would depend on what you meant when you said "the speed of light". In a medium or in vacuo? Phase, group or signal velocity?Pretty sure if you said "no" to the constancy of the speed of light it would put Einstein in a bad mood.
Well what would have to be observed etc?That would depend on what you meant when you said "the speed of light". In a medium or in vacuo? Phase, group or signal velocity?
(Just trying to anticipate the sort of damn-fool replies we tend to get here from time to time)
Could be almost anything. SR and GR are so pervasive that the question you are asking is too open-ended to be answerable.Well what would have to be observed etc?
What would it take to prove Albert Einstein theories wrong?
I would think that providing an alternative would not be necessary.
Any one?
Theories such as Einstein's GR need not be shown to be wrong, rather just that that they have limitations in their applicability.Well what would have to be observed etc?
Would dark flow phenomena be a candidate? ( for example)
Can you think of any gravitational anomalies that may cause doubt?Theories such as Einstein's GR need not be shown to be wrong, rather just that that they have limitations in their applicability.
We use Newtonian for most everything Earth based, as well as most space endeavours. If GR had truly shown Newtonian to be wrong, we wouldn't be using it.
You mean obviously Dark Energy? GR has no probs with DE, in fact Einstein was using it to try and disable what GR was telling him about a dynamic universe, when the thoughts of the day, were that the universe was static. As he later exclaimed, that was his greatest blunder.
No I mean Dark Flow.You mean obviously Dark Energy?
Not anything that is not already explained with DE and DM. But I could be wrong.Can you think of any gravitational anomalies that may cause doubt?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flowDark Flow
theoretical non-random component of the peculiar velocity of galaxy clusters.
Can you think of any gravitational anomalies that may cause doubt?
hmm.. It might be of interest for you to look em up...Other then the center of the observable universe centered on any object/thing anywhere, the universe has no center.
I don't no much about dark flow.
That would be impossible. That's the only infinity that I believe in. There is no end to the damn-fool replies that may be coming shortly.(Just trying to anticipate the sort of damn-fool replies we tend to get here from time to time)
Also another major apparent anomaly would be the Eridanus super void... (CMB cold spot) although perhaps not directly related to Einstein but possibly more to the physics that has been generated because of GR.
What would it take to prove Albert Einstein theories wrong?
And of course as we all know Einstein's GR is constantly being tested every day by professionals, using state of the art scientific equipment, with the goal of trying to falsify GR, and so far its passing all tests with flying colours. That is science and what it does...testing, retesting and retesting again.Theories such as Einstein's GR need not be shown to be wrong, rather just that that they have limitations in their applicability.
We use Newtonian for most everything Earth based, as well as most space endeavours. If GR had truly shown Newtonian to be wrong, we wouldn't be using it.
You mean obviously Dark Energy? GR has no probs with DE, in fact Einstein was using it to try and disable what GR was telling him about a dynamic universe, when the thoughts of the day, were that the universe was static. As he later exclaimed, that was his greatest blunder.