Is Einstein's Theory of Relativity Flawed?

[ingodszoo]

I can't help but think that e=mc2 has a flaw. One mass is not defined to its simplest form and the speed of light has no vector accounted for. Any thoughts about this?

 

[Phrak]

To address your second objection, let's imagine for a moment that c were a vector. How would you write the new and improved e=mc2 when c is a vector?

 

[haael]

Speed is not an invariant vector in relativity. Also, speed of light doesn't have any associated vector.

Constant 'c' is just proportionality between space and time dimensions.

 

[haael]

Speed is not an invariant vector in relativity. Also, speed of light doesn't have any associated vector.

Constant 'c' is just proportionality between space and time dimensions.

 

[jtbell]

Relativistic energy is rest-mass energy plus kinetic energy. In non-relativistic mechanics, rest-mass energy doesn't exist, of course, and kinetic energy doesn't depend on the direction of motion. So why should relativistic energy depend on direction?

 

[russ_watters]

To addresses the title more directly: Einstein couldn't possibly have been wrong by more than a tiny fraction of a percent: his theories have been confirmed by experiments to a high degree of precision.

 

[Phrak]

To addresses the title more directly: Einstein couldn't possibly have been wrong by more than a tiny fraction of a percent: his theories have been confirmed by experiments to a high degree of precision.

That's one perspective provided by the sieve of practicality and application. The sieve I favor is less forgiving, comprised of principles that seem to have a fundamental nature. Included in these might be the conservation of spin currents for which Riemann geometry appears to fall short.

 

[nnnm4]

Phrak, your sieve is useless without experimental verification.

 

[Phrak]

Phrak, your sieve is useless without experimental verification.

Gad Zooks! All these years conserving momentum gone to waste. Please elaborate.