Why Einstein will never be wrong

[paddoboy]

@ OP,

Einstein will never be wrong because he is dead and does not talk much these days.

However if you mean his theorys will never be proven wrong you contradicted this already by saying,



So let me try to guess the idea behind this thread.

You are saying that "to discredit Einstein someone needs a better Theory.".

Ummm.. Okay.

Overall, a rather weird interpretation of the article I presented.
Einstein will not be discredited nor his theories proved wrong. They have already been shown to be correct [within there zone of applicability to pinch brucep's terminology] the latest highly precise test results agreeing of course being GP-B.

The idea behind the thread? To show that Einstein will never be shown to be wrong, for the reasons stated.

 

[paddoboy]

His point is not that general relativity will never be supplanted by a superior scientific theory. His point is that to then say it has been proven "wrong" will not really be an apt characterization, as it will continue to model the cosmos with a stunning degree of accuracy.

Well put.
The same holds for any future validated QGT. It will not invalidate the BB/Inflationary model or GR, but rather encompass both, while extending the zones of applicability.

 

[paddoboy]

Say the train is moving away but now the conductor alters the frequency of his whistle, so the pitch goes up, while it is moving away. I can be tuned to cancel the distance tweak, so the train appears stationary if we only use the red shift. The whistle frequency tweak can also add to the distance tweak to get what appears to be a faster train, than is real, if we only depend on the red shift.

The question becomes, are there any sources of frequency modulation, that can amplify the red shift so expansion appears faster?

Let me show you how this is possible with a well documented observation. If we orbit a satellite, around the earth, its clock/time will change relative to the surface of the earth. On the other hand, if we measure the physical clock, does its physical size get smaller or larger? No, therefore only time or frequency is being tweaked by the order in a permanent way, but distance is left unaffected. We can prove this in the lab. I don't need dark energy, only gravity and orbits to frequency/time tweak.

Am I reading you correctly?

How about length contraction? Or more correctly Lorentz/Fitzgerald contraction. Which is an observed shrinking in length of an object with some velocity in relation to an outside observer.

 

[Nondual]

Nobody replied to this so I looked at Wiki...

Thanks for posting that. Without going into detail DE and DM seem fairly suspect to me (a layman). It was good to read some other possible explanations for the discrepancies.

 

[paddoboy]

Thanks for posting that. Without going into detail DE and DM seem fairly suspect to me (a layman). It was good to read some other possible explanations for the discrepancies.

Speaking as another layman, who has done plenty of reading and checking out the most reputable sites, DM is on reasonable solid grounds.
The following was fairly convincing evidence that it does exist.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
"It's a bet that finally paid off, because a team of scientists working with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has found direct evidence that dark matter is as real as the rings around Saturn.

The discovery cements dark matter's status as the biggest building block in the universe, while also putting to rest the nagging worries of many astronomers that they gambled wrong.

Dark matter's murky nature has always sat a bit uneasily with astronomers. "It is uncomfortable for a scientist to have to invoke something invisible and undetectable to account for 90 percent of the matter in the universe," said Maxim Markevitch, a Chandra astrophysicist and researcher with the study.
more at.....
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/dark_matter_proven.html
___________________________________________________________________________________________

I also had an astronomer once tell me we had more evidence for DM then we do for BH's.
He though possibily may have been carrying some baggage, as this was his particular field of expertise.

DE on the other hand is a complete mystery. It has been surmised that it is the Cosmological Constant [Albert's greatest blunder] or a type of quintessence.
But we must remember that cosmologists did not just pull the DE concept out of their arse. It was proposed after data from WMAP was researched and surprised them as much as it did ordinary lay people like you and me. It was a complete necessity to align with what had been observed....that is acceleration in the expansion rate.

To revisit GR for modification is really the last option, as it has so much backing and support, by so much observational data [GP-B being the latest confirmation] that tinkering cosmologists would be rightly reluctant to tinker with such well supported confirmed data.

 

[Sorcerer]

Speaking as another layman, who has done plenty of reading and checking out the most reputable sites, DM is on reasonable solid grounds.
The following was fairly convincing evidence that it does exist.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
"It's a bet that finally paid off, because a team of scientists working with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has found direct evidence that dark matter is as real as the rings around Saturn.

The discovery cements dark matter's status as the biggest building block in the universe, while also putting to rest the nagging worries of many astronomers that they gambled wrong.

Dark matter's murky nature has always sat a bit uneasily with astronomers. "It is uncomfortable for a scientist to have to invoke something invisible and undetectable to account for 90 percent of the matter in the universe," said Maxim Markevitch, a Chandra astrophysicist and researcher with the study.
more at.....
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/dark_matter_proven.html
___________________________________________________________________________________________

I also had an astronomer once tell me we had more evidence for DM then we do for BH's.
He though possibily may have been carrying some baggage, as this was his particular field of expertise.

DE on the other hand is a complete mystery. It has been surmised that it is the Cosmological Constant [Albert's greatest blunder] or a type of quintessence.
But we must remember that cosmologists did not just pull the DE concept out of their arse. It was proposed after data from WMAP was researched and surprised them as much as it did ordinary lay people like you and me. It was a complete necessity to align with what had been observed....that is acceleration in the expansion rate.

To revisit GR for modification is really the last option, as it has so much backing and support, by so much observational data [GP-B being the latest confirmation] that tinkering cosmologists would be rightly reluctant to tinker with such well supported confirmed data.

I don't think it is enough to say that it is the CC. It's supposed to be 2/3 of the mass of the universe so it can't just be a term in an equation.

I'm sure nobody wanted to revisit Newton"s equations when the discrepancies were found, but A Einstein did.

It may well be that there will be a refinement of GR to encompass what we know as DE, but who could do it? GR is already so difficult mathematically (too much for me) that it would take a similar genius to AE to do it, and there is no sign of him/her.

Overall, I think scientists should be ultra careful about describing DE as anything other than a hypothesis, which is the state it's in right now. A little humility might be in order: we don't know what is causing the cosmic acceleration.

 

[paddoboy]

I don't think it is enough to say that it is the CC. It's supposed to be 2/3 of the mass of the universe so it can't just be a term in an equation.

The CC can be any value of our choosing...I think?

I'm sure nobody wanted to revisit Newton"s equations when the discrepancies were found, but A Einstein did.

Einstein did not change Newton's equations. They describe gravity in different ways and both have their zone of applicabilities.
Some interesting answers here.....
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57495/einstein-gravity-versus-newtons-gravity

It may well be that there will be a refinement of GR to encompass what we know as DE, but who could do it? GR is already so difficult mathematically (too much for me) that it would take a similar genius to AE to do it, and there is no sign of him/her.

I don't believe that is necessary, but I'm not sure and am open for correction.
Einstein's equations, like Newton's will not otherwise change. A future QGT will just extend GR's parameters to encompass the Planck/quantum region of space.

Overall, I think scientists should be ultra careful about describing DE as anything other than a hypothesis, which is the state it's in right now. A little humility might be in order: we don't know what is causing the cosmic acceleration.

DE is just the term they use for describing whatever is inherent in space/time to make it expand and accelerate. Agreed, we don't know what it is, and whether it is the CC, or quintessence, but they are working on it.
Not sure what any humility has to do with it though.

 

[Sorcerer]

The CC can be any value of our choosing...I think?





Einstein did not change Newton's equations. They describe gravity in different ways and both have their zone of applicabilities.
Some interesting answers here.....
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57495/einstein-gravity-versus-newtons-gravity





I don't believe that is necessary, but I'm not sure and am open for correction.
Einstein's equations, like Newton's will not otherwise change. A future QGT will just extend GR's parameters to encompass the Planck/quantum region of space.




DE is just the term they use for describing whatever is inherent in space/time to make it expand and accelerate. Agreed, we don't know what it is, and whether it is the CC, or quintessence, but they are working on it.
Not sure what any humility has to do with it though.

In order.

Stating a value doesn't explain what it is.

True, but offers an alternative solution.

You don't know that until someone does it.

That's not how DE is portayed. It's stated as a given, which as you say, it is not. Humility in this case means acknowledging that which you don't know.

 

[paddoboy]

In order.

Stating a value doesn't explain what it is.

I've said a number of times we don't know what it is....But the acceleration is still happening and needs explaining. And a CC could do that.

True, but offers an alternative solution.

Like you said, we don't know what it is.....and that includes alternative solutions. Why would not scientists go with the most likely.....that is a force inherent to space/time we call DE?

You don't know that until someone does it.

We have irrefutable facts, observations, experimental results that confirm GR to a high degree of accuracy.

That's not how DE is portayed. It's stated as a given, which as you say, it is not. Humility in this case means acknowledging that which you don't know.

DE is portrayed as a force inherent to space/time that makes it accelerate in expansion.
All scientists acknowledge that they don't know what it is.
I mean what else do you want them to do? Jumping off a tall building or slitting their throats?

 

[Sorcerer]

I've said a number of times we don't know what it is....But the acceleration is still happening and needs explaining. And a CC could do that.




Like you said, we don't know what it is.....and that includes alternative solutions. Why would not scientists go with the most likely.....that is a force inherent to space/time we call DE?





We have irrefutable facts, observations, experimental results that confirm GR to a high degree of accuracy.





DE is portrayed as a force inherent to space/time that makes it accelerate in expansion.
All scientists acknowledge that they don't know what it is.
I mean what else do you want them to do? Jumping off a tall building or slitting their throats?

Listen, how do you do that stuff where you break up the quote into lines?

Scientists DO NOT do that. They say that they want to spend zillions of $$$ finding out what this DE is. And some of them should do what you say. Often.

 

[paddoboy]

Scientists DO NOT do that. They say that they want to spend zillions of $$$ finding out what this DE is. And some of them should do what you say. Often.

Scientists do not do what? Admit they don't know what DE is?
Can you show me one scientist/cosmologist/Astronomer that says he knows what DE is?

 

[paddoboy]

Listen, how do you do that stuff where you break up the quote into lines?

Just copy and paste the

wherever you need it.

 

[paddoboy]

and the [/QUOTE] wherever you need it.

 

[roscoe]

One of the benefits of being an astrophysicist is your weekly email from someone who claims to have "proven Einstein wrong". These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as "it is obvious that..", or they are page after page of complex equations with dozens of scientific terms used in non-traditional ways. They all get deleted pretty quickly, not because astrophysicists are too indoctrinated in established theories, but because none of them acknowledge how theories get replaced.

To begin with, Einstein's gravity will never be proven wrong by a theory. It will be proven wrong by experimental evidence showing that the predictions of general relativity don't work. Einstein's theory didn't supplant Newton's until we had experimental evidence that agreed with Einstein and didn't agree with Newton. So unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of "disproving Einstein" will fall on deaf ears.

Einstein himself told us how to prove his theory wrong.

He started out by saying that the hypothesis stands on two postulates

1) The speed of light cannot be exceeded.

2) There is no absolute space.

Prove either of these postulates wrong and the theory falls.

His treatise moved from theory status to principle status by explaining the odd movements of Mercury's orbit. Here's your experimental proof. Mercury's observed orbit violates Newtonian Physics, the anomaly can be explained by using General Relativity. The space warp made by the sun's gravity effects the observed timing of the orbit.

I understand that the GPS system includes General Relativity corrections.

 

[paddoboy]

Einstein himself told us how to prove his theory wrong.

He started out by saying that the hypothesis stands on two postulates

1) The speed of light cannot be exceeded.

2) There is no absolute space.

Prove either of these postulates wrong and the theory falls.

His treatise moved from theory status to principle status by explaining the odd movements of Mercury's orbit. Here's your experimental proof. Mercury's observed orbit violates Newtonian Physics, the anomaly can be explained by using General Relativity. The space warp made by the sun's gravity effects the observed timing of the orbit.

I understand that the GPS system includes General Relativity corrections.

Won't argue with that.....
By the same token we could wake up tomorrow morning and find the sky is green instead of blue...Naturally that will mean our theory as to why the sky is blue [Rayleigh scattering] is wrong, or needs re-evaluating.

 

[paddoboy]

Also Newtons model is not wrong.....It is quite correct when used within its zone of applicablity
But when compared to Einstein's model, Newton's equations are approximate solutions to Einstein's equations. Everything Newton's gravity predicts, Einstein's does as well but with more accuracy, as in predicting the 43 arc seconds in relation to the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit.
Newtons model is also still used for most space probes to Mars and even beyond....Not sure about New Horizons.