Was Einstein wrong?

  • Thread starter lockecole
  • Start date
  • #26
25
0
Originally posted by Integral
Notice that in 2 years the "shell" has grown less then 2 light years, so what ever it is that is expanding is moving at less then c. What is the problem with this?
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,201
56
Since I made a mistake in it I removed the entry,
Does this mean that, to keep you honest, we need to do a complete quote of each of your entries?

The particles scattering the light we see need not be moving at all. So you have found nothing unusual. You simply lack the fundamental knowledge required to meaningfully assess what you are seeing.
 
  • #28
NateTG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,450
6
Note that the assumtion is that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. The speed of light need not be constant in accelerated reference frames.
 
  • #29
25
0
"You simply lack the fundamental knowledge required to meaningfully assess what you are seeing."

You are so into squiggle that you cannot correctly interpret the real world when it is staring right at you!
 
  • #30
25
0
Originally posted by NateTG
Note that the assumtion is that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. The speed of light need not be constant in accelerated reference frames.
Yes in a way that is what could be going on here; but, what should be taking front seat is the event itself.

Perhaps the so called empty space is not as empty as we have been told, perhaps under different conditions / environments C is not @ 186k m/sec

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.


:wink:
 
  • #31
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,201
56
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?
 
  • #32
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,367
2
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 [Broken] has also been seen.

Needless to say, no need for variable c, or any other new physics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
25
0
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 [Broken] 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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,847
4,664
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.
 
  • #35
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
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.
 
  • #36
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.
 
  • #37
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,847
4,664
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.
 
  • #38
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,201
56
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.
 

Related Threads on Was Einstein wrong?

Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
Top