Is Einstein's Theory of Relativity Flawed?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter A 15 year old
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time Time travel Travel
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the validity of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, particularly questioning whether there are flaws in its formulas regarding the speed of light and the implications for objects traveling at relativistic speeds. Participants explore concepts related to velocity addition, spacetime, and quantum mechanics, with a focus on speculative theories and personal interpretations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • James proposes that if an object travels at 0.95c and launches a projectile at 0.06c, it could theoretically exceed the speed of light, suggesting a concept of "jumping" over dimples in spacetime.
  • Warren challenges James's understanding of velocity addition in relativity, stating that velocities do not add linearly as they do in classical mechanics.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the validity of concepts like "dimples in time" and traveling faster than light, asserting that these ideas do not align with current scientific understanding.
  • Another participant argues that while Einstein's theory is widely accepted, it is not beyond questioning and acknowledges the possibility of future discoveries that could challenge it.
  • There are discussions about the nature of scientific theories and the importance of empirical evidence, with some participants emphasizing that theories can evolve over time.
  • One participant highlights the confusion surrounding relativistic effects, suggesting that visual aids can help in understanding these concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the interpretation of Einstein's theory, with some defending its validity and others questioning its completeness. No consensus is reached regarding the existence of flaws in the theory or the validity of speculative ideas presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of understanding of relativity and its implications, leading to some confusion and misinterpretations of the theory. The discussion reflects a mix of personal theories and established scientific principles, with no resolution on the speculative claims made.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the fundamentals of relativity, the nature of scientific theories, and the interplay between established science and speculative ideas.

  • #31
good point. i don't think that it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light. it just not possable at this time. do you think time travel is possable?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
sun light maybe but are house lights and things light flickers on and off.
 
  • #33
No, I think it is impossible.
 
  • #34
what about viewing things in the future?
 
  • #35
That is not possible.
 
  • #36
How is one to "view things in the future?" How do you define that as?
 
  • #37
what about if we flew away to a star far away traveling near the speed of light? the people on the ship would age slower than people on earth.
 
  • #38
see that would mean there was destiny and things all happen for a reason and all kinds of phisphical questions come up
 
  • #39
Arg, listen you are going to get banned. Don't express your ideas on the forum. If you want to talk, PM me. I'm open to all ideas, while others are not. They will freaking own you.
 
  • #40
Time dilation has already been discussed previously in this thread.
 
  • #41
i wasnt expressing my views i was saing that if you could view the future a lot of question would arise.
 
  • #42
this is my first time here i don't know how to pm yet
 
  • #43
contact him on AIM.
 
  • #44
i don't have aim
 
  • #45
why are we not allowed to express our own views and theories?
 
  • #46
-

employee #416 said:
You are unable to go the speed of light. You can only go under the speed of light. No matter how fast you go (.9999999999999999c) you can never reach c.

Why do you think like that? How do you know that? I think, we can't talk about certain things, if we talk, we must be sure the definiteness of ''everything''. I guess we can reach the speed of light, but now we can't go faster than light ( because of the lorentz transformation)!

PS: Sorry for my late-reply because of the dial-up...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
but whos to say what is definite? things change
 
  • #48
No-one minds you presnsting your own ideas and views as long as you back them up with sound physical reasoning, where necessary utlizing the language of physics - maths. However if you post wild speculation backed up with cod-philosophy then people will get annoyed as this is a physics site.

Again nobody minds people making mistakes, but what people do mind is the absolute refusal to accept corrections esp. when the corrections are obvious.
 
  • #49
bino said:
but whos to say what is definite? things change

Why do not say things are definite, but if you have a theory, but you have no justification for your theory, your theory is worthless and it is a waste of time to even discuss.
 
  • #50
ok i understand that you should be able to back up what you said but some things really back up. take perpetul motion, some people think it is impossible but the Earth is moving around the sun with no energy going into it.
 
  • #51
bino said:
ok i understand that you should be able to back up what you said but some things really back up. take perpetul motion, some people think it is impossible but the Earth is moving around the sun with no energy going into it.

The Earth doesn't need energy to keep on moving, as long as it's kinetic energy stays the same, all else being equal, it will move in the same way. So no energy is bieng created out of nothing (which is the basic definition of perpetual motion). In fact the Earth's motion is changing over a long period of time.
 
  • #52
but it is always moving forever or until something else stops it
 
  • #53
if we took a whole lot of wire wrapped it round the general area that the Earth moves would that not create electricity?
 
  • #54
Why do planets move in circles around the sun? Gravity you might say. But that is not possible because *IF* in proportion the sun is not big enough to keep entire planets in orbit, in proportion to the gravitational pull on earth. Unless the sun has a huge magnetic core, which we *Think* is not possible based on theories. And if it is magnetic pull, why can't we detect such a huge force here on earth?
 
  • #55
A 15 year old said:
Do you have justification? Do any of us? Who is to say that you are right by saying his theories are a waste of time? I'll bet if einstein came up with the same theory you would believe it. Because of his hyped reputation you pathetic followers would believe him anyways.

Yes I have justification, infact I very rarely believe things without justifcation. I didn't say anyones theories were a waste of time, but as I said any theory wihtput justification is a waste of time, this should be obvious.

I don't know which theory you're tlaking about, but I was always try to be objective and judge a theory on it's own merits. I ceratinly disagree with a lot of Einstein's pronouncmenats on QM (infact if physics is some sort of Einbstein-cult, how do you explain the importance of QM in modern physics?).

If you think you can overthrow accepted physics without even knowing what it is, the you are sadly mistaken.
 
  • #56
bino said:
but it is always moving forever or until something else stops it

That's the definition of inertia, not the defitnion of perpetual motion.
 
  • #57
where do you get that the sun can't support the planets?
 
  • #58
bino said:
if we took a whole lot of wire wrapped it round the general area that the Earth moves would that not create electricity?

It dpends very much on the wire etc, but energy is conserved. There is no cheap way to get around things like the conservation of energy.
 
  • #59
Boy, you guys are geniuses. I guess that article says it all, einstein was wrong, and your right!(the article did say it did not violate einstein's rules however)

I was reading a really good science article at crackpot.com that said that everything in a science is wrong and was made up by a whole bunch of stupid, clueless people. The only thing that can save our science is people that are not trained in science at all, and indeed completely reject the idea of the scientific method. Then you guys would then tell us all how stupid we all are and enlighten us in how the universe REALLY is, WOW!

I suggest you goto crackpot.com and pick up the crusade against all of us stupid old-minded dummies who are trying to repress your genius.
 
  • #60
Per`pet´u`al
Adj. 1. perpetual - continuing forever or indefinitely
 

Similar threads

High School Traveling through space at zero km/s
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
High School Is time an illusion?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School The expansion of the Universe and time travel (By a non-scientist)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Time travel is a fact or fiction.?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
High School Time Travel: Can Humans Go Faster Than Ordinary Speed?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Another Time Dilation Question
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Undergrad Questions regarding traveling speed in time and gravity as a force
  • · Replies 95 ·
4
Replies
95
Views
7K
High School c^2 in Einstein‘s theory of relativity
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad Effects of time dilation for near-speed-of-light travel
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
12K
Undergrad Can Time Travel Into the Future Really Happen?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K