Was Einstein Wrong? Check Out The NY Times Article

[Integral]

What I do notice here is that from precisely these kinds of events we shall soon learn many new things including what ends Einstein's account based as it was upon an unmeasurably small part of reality.

While much is yet to be learned the work of Einstein, like the work of Newton will be the basis for advances to be made. What we now know matchs the universe to well to be thrown out.

What makes you think that you have a special handle on reality?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by toasty
Since I made a mistake in it I removed the entry, but must clarify what I took notice of; Hubble object V838 images taken in May 2002 and again in Feb 2004 shows growth of 2-3 lightyears.

However we are looking at some kind of gas of debris and it is highly unlikely that such a thing could happen if C is constant and the limit of velocity in the universe.

At close to C nothing except light should be showing itself and this image shows something is happening at the same or a greater velocity.

It's kinda tough working out what toasty posted then removed; it seems to be a reference to http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2004/10/images/b/formats/web_print.jpg has also been seen.

Needless to say, no need for variable c, or any other new physics.

 

[toasty]

Originally posted by Nereid
It's kinda tough working out what toasty posted then removed; it seems to be a reference to http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2004/10/images/b/formats/web_print.jpg has also been seen.

Needless to say, no need for variable c, or any other new physics.

If we cannot trust the evidence then what is left to investigate?

 

[ZapperZ]

Originally posted by Integral
Zapper,
All good and fine but while the RESULTS of a constant c created some controversy, the postulate did not. Why? If the postulates were in question the entire work would be meaningless. The postulates HAD to be accepted physics, not new revelations, or the paper would have been rejected out of hand.

Hi Integral...

Not to drag this thing longer than it should, but in the March 2004 issue of the APS News (starting on pg. 4), there are 4 separate letters responding to Millikan's 1949 tribute to Einstein. Each one of them questioned Millikan's assertion that Einstein either knew, or were significantly influenced by the MM experiment in his formulation of Special Relativity. There appears to be a unanimous agreement, at least in this issue, that at best, MM experiment played no significant role in SR's formulation.

There are also descriptions on why the 1905 SR paper was significant, but that's a separate issue than what I want to emphasize here. :)

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by toasty
If we cannot trust the evidence then what is left to investigate?

Nothing. So it would seem, you've painted yourself into a corner.

 

[kinnabird5]

just a small side thought...when Einstein made his first in home weekly calender, he forgot saturday. he told people he liked friday so much that he wanted two of them.

 

[ZapperZ]

Originally posted by kinnabird5
just a small side thought...when Einstein made his first in home weekly calender, he forgot saturday. he told people he liked friday so much that he wanted two of them.

Maybe HE was the first one to yell "Thank God It's Friday!" :)

He probably said that right before the God-Dice thing... OK, I think I need to cut back on my caffine intake.

Zz.

 

[Integral]

Originally posted by ZapperZ
Hi Integral...

Not to drag this thing longer than it should, but in the March 2004 issue of the APS News (starting on pg. 4), there are 4 separate letters responding to Millikan's 1949 tribute to Einstein. Each one of them questioned Millikan's assertion that Einstein either knew, or were significantly influenced by the MM experiment in his formulation of Special Relativity. There appears to be a unanimous agreement, at least in this issue, that at best, MM experiment played no significant role in SR's formulation.

There are also descriptions on why the 1905 SR paper was significant, but that's a separate issue than what I want to emphasize here. :)

Zz.

It could very well be that Einstein's original paper was written as a response solely to Maxwell's prediction. Even without Michelson's failure to detect an ether experimentally, Maxwell's prediction shook the foundations of Physics. After all, it is WHY Michelson and Morley performed their experiment.