When will Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity be debunked and what will replace it (speculative)?

As Einsteins theories are a beautiful refinement of Newtonian mechanics, So any future theory is likely to be a beautiful refinement of Einsteins Relativity.

I don't think it will actually be "debunked", per se.

All this thread is proving is how peoples thinking has become so black and white.

Just because someones theory is updated from new information it doesn't mean the theory is debunked.

For a scientific 'theory' to be valid it has to be testable, or it remain an hypothesis. Einsteins and Newtons theories would never have been 'theory' if they were not testable, or failed the tests in anyway. So to debunk those theories you would have to prove they completely fail at testing, which we already know they don't.

The problem isn't Einstein's theories. It's todays physicist. I don't believe Einstein ever intended his math to be law. It was intended to a living equation. It was written with known facts of his time to try to explain the un-explainable. When new facts are found they are supposed to be worked into the equation.

reply to post by BBalazs


I say it's going to be subquantum kinetics. It predicted the Biefeld-Brown effect before the "creator" knew about Brown's work.

For information, I would post a link to some of My threads on this, but I have reasons not to. Search "electrogravitics Amaterasu" to find that info.

I doubt that they'll be debunked in whole, but there is an aspect of scalable physics that will - once accurately identified - definitely result in Einstein's theories being properly associated within the totality of physical reality instead of being seen as the only plausible theories to explain physical reality. That aspect is the act that material existence is our own human perception of the symbiotic relationship between event trajectories and the informational continuum that emerges as a result of those trajectories.

Once that relationship is properly acknowledged as being the foundation of what we refer to as matter, all the mysteries of physics, from quantum to cosmological, will neatly crumble away and we'll be able to start eliminating the dogmas and misinformations that have plagued us since long before science took the place of magic in our world.

What will replace it?

Bob's Not-So-Special Theory Of Relativity.

I agree with a previous post that suggested Einstein never intended his theory to be the end-all-be-all.

He died working on his "theory of everything" - an ambitious challenge, to say the least.

Einstein would be horribly disappointed if he came here and found that we were not looking to expand upon the concepts of Relativity - or to overturn them in light of new observations.

Surely, he would lament not getting a chance to review the information and come up with his own revised theory... but part of being dead is having a considerably limited amount of interaction with the living.

Personally, I think the next "big kahuna" will be the discovery of quantum-mechanical effects at the extremes of relativistic velocities. This will establish "Aether" (though I despise the word, as it tends to shut many people's minds off) and lead to revisions to Lorentz Transformations that define when a mass will begin to experience these phenomena (thus placing a hard limit on Lorentz Invariance, which is currently presumed, largely, to extend infinitely with the amount of energy used to accelerate a mass).

This also provides for slightly different physics in different parts of the universe - particularly in the areas of extreme energy or where the phenomena begin to exhibit 'avalanche' characteristics (the point where a UV laser could theoretically stimulate x-ray emissions from a gas that would normally be inert - or something along those lines - I'm kind of pulling that one out of my rectum, but should be enough of an idea of what my thought process is).

That will lead to an inherent Galilean Space-Time model becoming the predominant model whereby there is a preferred reference frame for establishing simultaneity. This eliminates space-time paradoxes while permitting certain forms of FTL.

It is predicted that certain particles will be able to 'tunnel,' briefly, at super-luminous velocities just ahead of their source mass. With enough energy - it's possible they could tunnel far further or be set up on a system that allows them to stutter-tunnel through a standing-wave (of some kind) in manner that more closely resembles classical super-luminous movement.

That said, transportation of a complete atom (much less organic molecules) is a completely different issue. It's safe to say that we will be able to send information via FTL networks before we will be able to send a ship of any kind.

Of course, this discovery will likely only come once we have a particle accelerator that rivals the Asteroid Belt in circumference. We're talking accelerating particles to the point their entire mass exists at an energy state present in the most intense sub-atomic regions of the LHC's collisions.

But who knows what we will find between then and now.

how do we magnetize things on earth. with electricity. lighting does the same thing. the iron in the earth's interior acts like a magnet. lighting charges it.

I don't think it will be replaced. Just refined, just like Newtonian physics were refined.

For 99% of all normal physics problems, we can still apply Newtonian physics, and we still get the right answer.
The remaining 1% needs relativity applied to, and when you get to quantum mechanics, we need more refinement.

So neither Newtonian physics nor Einsteinian physics are wrong. there is maybe 1% of the field in which it doesn't apply anymore, but that doesn't invalidate the earlier physics.

Don't know what mathematics the new physics will have, but if you work with normal physics, the Lorentz transformations that transfer Newtonian laws into relativity can be ignored, and I am sure the same will apply to whatever refines Einsteinian physics.

if you do maths to 2 significant figures, and you have to use Pi in an equation, you don't spend hours calculating Pi to 100000000000 figures after the decimal, but you use 22/7. The same applies for physics.

reply to post by tpaine1809


The earths spin is a natural effect of it coelecing out of the early solar systems ecretion disk. The toiletspin is caused by the corialis effect, this can be demonstrated in the lab by spinning a table th opposite direction and putting a cup of water on it. When draned it will spin the direction of the table not the earth. Hurricanes and their south hemispheric cousin the typhoon follow the same principle. The earth is no a magnet, the magnetic field is caused by iron and nickel spinning from convection in the earths core due to heat.

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by BBalazs

If you want to go to space, you will not use newtonian physics will you know?

 

Plenty of physics from Newton still apply in space.

One of his theories was even validated on the moon... So I'm not sure what you are talking about.

plenty. right.
whats your problem. is the question close to home?
YOU cannot fly to the moon with NEWTON physics. Both you and I no that for a fact.





Actually newtonian physics work fine for orbit, thus for lunar insertion, for example newton acuratly predicted orbit hundreds of years befre any space program, using a simple example of shooting cannon balls. Shoot it straight with X power it goes X far, increase power it goes farther. This is the example we learned in artillery school at fort sill OK home of the field artillery, I would know that's how we aim artillery I am. 13-E cannon fire direction control specialist. We not only have to calculate range deflection and quadrant but rotation of the earth into every shot using , you guessed it newtonian physics. Given enough power I can acurately orbit a round and land it time on target.

Moto of the field artillery- don't run you will only die tired/ steel rain!

Originally posted by BBalazs

Define debunked...

Or do you just mean things you don't understand? Therefore gullible...

Originally posted by tpaine1809
Alright. Well the earth is a giant magnet.

Well lookslike somebody slept through 3rd grade science...

Originally posted by tpaine1809
Everything contains north and south pole magnets.

Nobody has ever found the elusive "magentic monopole"( i.e. only a "north" or"south"pole).But "they" are looking.

The earth's magnetic fields are a result of the electrical currents induced in the liquid metal core.

Origin of the Magnetic Field
Magnetic fields are produced by the motion of electrical charges. For example, the magnetic field of a bar magnet results from the motion of negatively charged electrons in the magnet. The origin of the Earth's magnetic field is not completely understood, but is thought to be associated with electrical currents produced by the coupling of convective effects and rotation in the spinning liquid metallic outer core of iron and nickel. This mechanism is termed the dynamo effect.

Rocks that are formed from the molten state contain indicators of the magnetic field at the time of their solidification. The study of such "magnetic fossils" indicates that the Earth's magnetic field reverses itself every million years or so (the north and south magnetic poles switch). This is but one detail of the magnetic field that is not well understood.

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

Originally posted by tpaine1809
These magnets work in a helix motion through the earth. This is what causes it to spin.

Originally posted by tpaine1809
If you need proof go look at the Northern Lights.

Originally posted by tpaine1809

Observe how the spin is just like that of your toilet (If you live in the northern hemisphere) . This is because the magnetic pull of that pole is stronger . The further south you travel the weaker it gets. Which is why the middle of the earth is warmer.

nothing to do with the angle of the energy from that big star in our neighborhood directly over the equator??

Originally posted by tpaine1809
Magnets get weaker with heat, more heat = less protection from suns rays.

What came first the heat from rays weakengthe"magnets"or the heat increase from the rays weakening ahh

forget it...

Originally posted by tpaine1809

It's why the north and south poles are so cold and also have the highest amount of magnetism on earth. I'll let that marinate I have much more do you have any questions?

Please return your key to the ATS restroom; and empty out your avatar before you "enlighten"us any further.. s not a single point you uttered has any basis in fact whatsoever.( toilet bowl swirl as "proof of a magnetic cause of the earths rotation"?The rotation does indeed effect the direction of the dreaded "toilet bowl swirl" but it hasnothing to do with magnetism.) Education in this day and age is free and easy and as close as "google"! There is no excuse for ignorance
of common knowledge.

We used to send folks like this across the plant to the maintenance shop to ask for the "the Aluminum magnet": ( a useless 75lb welded steel box filled with lead weight with a dummy power cord and a few big switches plumbed into it...). You'd learn what "ferrous metals " meant real fast...

Originally posted by NorEaster
I doubt that they'll be debunked in whole, but there is an aspect of scalable physics that will - once accurately identified - definitely result in Einstein's theories being properly associated within the totality of physical reality instead of being seen as the only plausible theories to explain physical reality. That aspect is the act that material existence is our own human perception of the symbiotic relationship between event trajectories and the informational continuum that emerges as a result of those trajectories.

Once that relationship is properly acknowledged as being the foundation of what we refer to as matter, all the mysteries of physics, from quantum to cosmological, will neatly crumble away and we'll be able to start eliminating the dogmas and misinformations that have plagued us since long before science took the place of magic in our world.

Personally, I think Einstein was wrong. He never described HOW or WHY matter "bends space-time." One has to take that entirely on faith. Subquantum kinetics has nothing it doesn't explain, and unifies electromagnetism with gravity. It is a unified theory.

reply to post by Amaterasu

Personally, I think Einstein was wrong. He never described HOW or WHY matter "bends space-time." One has to take that entirely on faith. Subquantum kinetics has nothing it doesn't explain, and unifies electromagnetism with gravity. It is a unified theory.

This coming from the person who says unlimited energy contraptions are real and in use today but hidden by the government.... because her dad said so when she was five.

Redefine "faith" for us would you.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by NorEaster
I doubt that they'll be debunked in whole, but there is an aspect of scalable physics that will - once accurately identified - definitely result in Einstein's theories being properly associated within the totality of physical reality instead of being seen as the only plausible theories to explain physical reality. That aspect is the act that material existence is our own human perception of the symbiotic relationship between event trajectories and the informational continuum that emerges as a result of those trajectories.

Once that relationship is properly acknowledged as being the foundation of what we refer to as matter, all the mysteries of physics, from quantum to cosmological, will neatly crumble away and we'll be able to start eliminating the dogmas and misinformations that have plagued us since long before science took the place of magic in our world.

Personally, I think Einstein was wrong. He never described HOW or WHY matter "bends space-time." One has to take that entirely on faith. Subquantum kinetics has nothing it doesn't explain, and unifies electromagnetism with gravity. It is a unified theory.

You of course; would...Except Einsteins predictions based upon relativity have been proven out by experimentation and observation since the early1900's.

reply to post by boncho


Travel? Semantics.Its funny how you "try" and sound witty.Oh bo you got to much time on your hands dude.Have you been peer reviewed lol.

Ill tell you what will happen, CERN will turn around and say damn, our measuring wasn't accurate and Einstein was right after all.

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by NorEaster
I doubt that they'll be debunked in whole, but there is an aspect of scalable physics that will - once accurately identified - definitely result in Einstein's theories being properly associated within the totality of physical reality instead of being seen as the only plausible theories to explain physical reality. That aspect is the act that material existence is our own human perception of the symbiotic relationship between event trajectories and the informational continuum that emerges as a result of those trajectories.

Once that relationship is properly acknowledged as being the foundation of what we refer to as matter, all the mysteries of physics, from quantum to cosmological, will neatly crumble away and we'll be able to start eliminating the dogmas and misinformations that have plagued us since long before science took the place of magic in our world.

Personally, I think Einstein was wrong. He never described HOW or WHY matter "bends space-time." One has to take that entirely on faith. Subquantum kinetics has nothing it doesn't explain, and unifies electromagnetism with gravity. It is a unified theory.

You of course; would...Except Einsteins predictions based upon relativity have been proven out by experimentation and observation since the early1900's.

So, Ace... You would contend that nothing else could ever describe things better? That We must take on faith that matter bends space-time with no explanation how and why? When there seems to be a better description that explains all the effects - from the apparent time dilation to the bending of light - with nothing taken on faith? And unifying EM and gravity, to boot?

Are You saying there is no way a better description will ever come along? That Einstein is the be-all and end-all? Progress would fail with all minds so narrow, I would think.