What would it take to prove Albert Einstein Wrong?

Quantum Quack

Life's a tease...
Valued Senior Member
What would it take to prove Albert Einstein theories wrong?
I would think that providing an alternative would not be necessary.
Any one?
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure if you said "no" to the constancy of the speed of light it would put Einstein in a bad mood.
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 :rolleyes: )
 
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 :rolleyes: )
Well what would have to be observed etc?
Would dark flow phenomena be a candidate? ( for example)
 
Last edited:
Well what would have to be observed etc?
Could be almost anything. SR and GR are so pervasive that the question you are asking is too open-ended to be answerable.

Re "dark flow" I'm afraid you will have to explain why you think it might call relativity into question.
 
Last edited:
What would it take to prove Albert Einstein theories wrong?
I would think that providing an alternative would not be necessary.
Any one?
Well what would have to be observed etc?
Would dark flow phenomena be a candidate? ( for example)
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.
 
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.
Can you think of any gravitational anomalies that may cause doubt?
 
You mean obviously Dark Energy?
No I mean Dark Flow.
Dark Energy and Dark Matter/Mass are another issue...
I read somewhere when Dark Flow was first discovered, that a re-known scientist claimed that the phenomena must be due to physics of another universe....as in current understanding made the phenomena impossible to explain.
For me it was all to do with researching the "Great Attractor" and later the research into the Shapely Supercluster and then onto the Dark Flow phenomena and it's history. ( claim -counter-claim etc)

Does the massive gravitational anomaly at the center of this universe pose a problem for GR?

Is one of the main questions haunting me...

 
Last edited:
Does the massive gravitational anomaly at the center of this universe pose a problem for GR?

Is one of the main questions haunting me...

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.
 
Dark Flow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow
theoretical non-random component of the peculiar velocity of galaxy clusters.
Can you think of any gravitational anomalies that may cause doubt?

expansion ... ?
some type of field between DE, DM & Expansion that somehow alters space-time.

a handful of magnets(rock/carbon/alloy)
traveling in various opposing directions
all containing their own charge
all giving off a field?
all creating a micro field ?
while interacting with a larger field ?

i see lines within lines within lines...

can any potential created field change the perceptual field of relative law ?
doesnt seem so, it just kinda seems like an alteration to an existing algorithm.
however, throwing a black hole into the mix ... how do you detect that which is undetectable ?
 
Last edited:
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.
hmm.. It might be of interest for you to look em up...
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.

So much of Physics today is a follow on from GR if I am not mistaken...
 
Show that the maximum speed of light isn't an absolute. Show that something can travel faster than the speed of light.
 
What would it take to prove Albert Einstein theories wrong?

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.
 
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.
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.
 
Back
Top