Is Einstein's Theory of Relativity Flawed?

AI Thread Summary
James Reinlie, a 15-year-old from Central Florida, questions Einstein's theory of relativity, specifically the claim that no object can exceed the speed of light. He proposes a scenario where an object traveling at 0.95c could launch a projectile at 0.06c, theoretically exceeding light speed. Forum members clarify that velocities do not add linearly in relativity, and that Einstein's theories are supported by extensive experimental evidence. They emphasize the importance of understanding established scientific principles before proposing new theories. The discussion highlights the challenges of grasping complex concepts in physics, especially for young enthusiasts.
  • #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 enrgy 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 defintion of perpetual motion). In fact the Earth's motion is changing over a long period of time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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 Einstien 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 defintion 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 einstien'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
 
  • #61
Do Newtons laws apply? Not at high velocities, am I correct? Well, the Earth travels around the sun at 100,000 km per hour. Is that not high velocity? Well , it is said that Newtons laws don't apply at high velocities, or is size and proportion involved?
 
  • #62
now I am not at all saying that everything in science is wrong by any means.
 
  • #63
A 15 year old said:
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?

Absolute rubbish, where are you getting this from? It's hard to decipher what you actually mean, but let me assure you that as the first theory of gravity was in part designed to describe the motion in the solar system there is no conflict there.
 
  • #64
in the grand sceem of things 100,000 km per hour is not high. it is slow
 
  • #65
  • #66
how do you add a picture under your name? a little off subject.
 
  • #67
A 15 year old said:
Do Newtons laws apply? Not at high velocities, am I correct? Well, the Earth travels around the sun at 100,000 km per hour. Is that not high velocity? Well , it is said that Newtons laws don't apply at high velocities, or is size and proportion involved?

Newton's laws are corrected by special relativity at high relative velocities, however in order to say any signifcant deviation from Newton's laws the relative velocities must be a signifcnt fraction of c (~300,000 km per second). 100km/h is not a significant fraction of c.
 
  • #68
employee #416 said:
In accordance to the currently accepted theory, yes, it is constant. Whether if that theory is right or wrong, I am not allowed to say. :rolleyes:

It's also according to experimental evidence.
 
  • #69
there are three types. http://www.phact.org/e/z/miltperp.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70
Get a picture. Get a host to host it. Get the URL for it. Copy and paste it into the "Signature" portion in your settings.

http://imageshack.us/index2.php
 
  • #71
thanks A 15 year old. ill try later
 
  • #72
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 will not perpetually move around the sun. Energy is constantly being lost in the form of gravitational waves.
 
  • #73
where is it at physics network?
 
  • #74
isnt gravity constant? it is pulling at the rate all the time mattering on your distance
 
  • #75
WTF, who is deleting posts?
 
  • #76
A 15 year old said:
Do Newtons laws apply? Not at high velocities, am I correct? Well, the Earth travels around the sun at 100,000 km per hour. Is that not high velocity? Well , it is said that Newtons laws don't apply at high velocities, or is size and proportion involved?

Yes, Newton's laws apply for macroscopic systems. It's just that we have to use relativistic versions of those laws at high speeds. Of course, the relativistic versions are correct at low speeds too.
 
  • #77
A 15 year old said:
WTF, who is deleting posts?

I am. Stop using Physics Forums as a crackpot chat site.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Back
Top