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

reply to post by Confusion42

Dont make any mistake.
I highly respect you dispite our back and forths.
My emotion doesnt influence my judgement.
I think you slightly misunderstod and underestimated the person asking the question.
I see the idiots type here, so i cannot really blame you.
I is very frustrating when someone denies science, or cherrypicks science to futher their beliefs.
I know.
However i am not one of them.
Although we dont think the same, i think you mas now understand what i have asked, and realized your preconceptions were wrong. Or maybe not. Lets not start again.
If you want to start again, rephrase the question, now knowing what i asked.
Other then that respect.


In fact i am man enough to apologise for any insults (although it was a back and forth) on my side.
Maybe you will do the same. Maybe not.
Cheers.

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by Confusion42

 

Dont make any mistake.
I highly respect you dispite our back and forths.
My emotion doesnt influence my judgement.
I think you slightly misunderstod and underestimated the person asking the question.
I see the idiots type here, so i cannot really blame you.
I is very frustrating when someone denies science, or cherrypicks science to futher their beliefs.
I know.
However i am not one of them.
Although we dont think the same, i think you mas now understand what i have asked, and realized your preconceptions were wrong. Or maybe not. Lets not start again.
If you want to start again, rephrase the question, now knowing what i asked.
Other then that respect.


In fact i am man enough to apologise for any insults (although it was a back and forth) on my side.
Maybe you will do the same. Maybe not.
Cheers.

edit on 22-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

I stopped the pointless arguing because it was pointless; I don't take back anything I said scientifically / factually wise. I do, also, apologize for any insults on my side, though.

To start again, because it is your thread, you should have the honors of clarifying the scientific issues that you would like discussed.

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by Confusion42

 

Dont make any mistake.
I highly respect you dispite our back and forths.
My emotion doesnt influence my judgement.
I think you slightly misunderstod and underestimated the person asking the question.
I see the idiots type here, so i cannot really blame you.
I is very frustrating when someone denies science, or cherrypicks science to futher their beliefs.
I know.
However i am not one of them.
Although we dont think the same, i think you mas now understand what i have asked, and realized your preconceptions were wrong. Or maybe not. Lets not start again.
If you want to start again, rephrase the question, now knowing what i asked.
Other then that respect.


In fact i am man enough to apologise for any insults (although it was a back and forth) on my side.
Maybe you will do the same. Maybe not.
Cheers.

edit on 22-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

I stopped the pointless arguing because it was pointless; I don't take back anything I said scientifically / factually wise. I do apologize for any insults on my side, though.

To start again, because it is your thread, you should have the honors of clarifying the scientific issues that you would like discussed.

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

Yeah, you didnt say anything scientifically wrong.
Thats my whole point.
I wasnt argueing the validity of einstien, i was pondering the possibility of the impropability.
And yeah, as i already admitted, i mas have phased the question wrong, or harshly for same tastes.
But you only needed to say this:
" i think your question is wrongly, or to harshly phrased, and can be misunderstood as an attack against science,
Please rephrase it in such a way.....if i may sugesst".
And i would have totally listened to you.
Instead, you went of on a dead angle on the validity of science (which i was not disputing), wirh the aim of (i would assume) explaining my scientific misunderstandigs (when none where bought to light).....
So in the end we end up with sematics, which may be a fair point, i admit, as people have emotional responses to certain words. I did not realise this. Now i do, next time i will phrase a question better.
Lesson learned.
You should just ask though, not assume;-)

reply to post by BBalazs


So onto the issues.

The recent neutrino experiment's are fascinating. If indeed they go faster than the speed of light, it opens up a whole new direction. Sadly, because I'm not a physicist that's working at CERN, I have no idea what direction it would be. I'd guess that the important questions they would want to answer is if it's only neutrino's that go faster than light, and why. I suppose they would figure that out by testing to see if they can accelerate other particles to FTL speeds. Than they would need to figure out how. And than, eventually, maybe figure out how to scale up the FTL speeds to ships?

If the neutrino experiment cannot be duplicated, I'm not sure what the direction would be. What do you think?

Originally posted by Confusion42
reply to post by BBalazs

 

So onto the issues.

The recent neutrino experiment's are fascinating. If indeed they go faster than the speed of light, it opens up a whole new direction. Sadly, because I'm not a physicist that's working at CERN, I have no idea what direction it would be. I'd guess that the important questions they would want to answer is if it's only neutrino's that go faster than light, and why. I suppose they would figure that out by testing to see if they can accelerate other particles to FTL speeds. Than they would need to figure out how. And than, eventually, maybe figure out how to scale up the FTL speeds to ships?

If the neutrino experiment cannot be duplicated, I'm not sure what the direction would be. What do you think?

I agree.
I think we are at the tip of the iceberg considering scientific understanding.
And in a way, we will always be at the tip of the iceberg.
The whole issue fascinates me, because i feel we are destined for greatness.
We sre destined for space and gene stuff i cant even imagine at this time.
I feel we are being held back by science deniers.
But cern is just one thing.
Science in all directions has reached fascinating areas.
I feel we truly maybe at the crusp of a paradigm, that is a gamechanger.
This is just a feeling, based on observation.
If it is a truly gamechanging paradigm, our very concepts will change.
Not that all previous knowledge will be invalidated, just we will move past them in such a way as they become seemingl irrelevant for cutting high edge stuff.
Certainly if the cern results are duplicated, it could have all sorts of implications,
I am mainly interested in plausible technological implications.
I also think there is a lot more going on at cern, the. Just this experiment.
What if.
What is light is not the constant, but something else?
Now that would be huge.
Off course einstein would fit for immidiate cosmic observations, that is a non issue.
However in terms of the structure of the universe or even in terms of the universe, a change in context could in effect create a whole new world or even science.
There is a lot going on in this area.
I have always felt mandelbrots fractals were never fully examined in the context of current physics theory.
And the fractals provide a glimpse into a "computeral" structure of the universe.
Now, were we able to understand HOW the uniform forms, what patterns it forms, etc.
Well that would certainly be a breakthrough, with wide implications.

Ps: i am not advocating this code madness.
I dont attach any significance to the fact the the universe has "codes", like evolution it is a matter of fact.
Thats how systems operate. No god here. However undertsanding this concept better.
Well, it really blows your mind.
Think: replication. Code manipulation, etc.

reply to post by BBalazs


These "mandelbrots fractals" are interesting. Something I shall read up on later.

It been fun. I'll rejoin this thread later, for now it's getting late.

Have a good one

Originally posted by Confusion42
reply to post by BBalazs

 

These "mandelbrots fractals" are interesting. Something I shall read up on later.

It been fun. I'll rejoin this thread later, for now it's getting late.

Have a good one

Have a good one.
Yes read upon them if you so wish.
They are fascinating.
Hard to really understand the depth. Hard to grasp.
It is a very different system, or could five "birth" to a very different system of scientific though.
And a coherent one at that.
I think they are just there for the moment.
Unexplained and unexplored in their depths.
By unexplained i mean, not really studied in depth.
A monster of knowledge waiting to be applicated, discovered.
It is a totaly "new" viewpoint.
I await the sythesis of modern physics with fractals keenly.
But off course thats just one thing out of many.

Let me add this, to system thinking in context.
We can study:
Macro level(space)
Micro level (genes, etc)
OR
We can study the system (perhaps fractal level)
Since science is intersted in a better understanding of our surroundings, these should eventually meet and overlap, as indeed they do.
We are really at the begining of a coherent "overlap".
This is a grand unified theory of "everythin"...
Off course it is unlikely we will know all, because of pockets of chaos, entropy, extropy....gamechangers on a universal level imho.
We are far from this, but when the barriers of science break down, well, in my view it is a revolution of scientific thought.


There is off course a grand unified theory of physics, but i am writing about when the 3 areas converge, if they do...
A grand unified theory of the universe?
Anyway, i am sure you all understand what i wrote.

Sidenote: physics is pretty far of from what i believe from a grand unified theory.this is why i bought it up.
Off course einstien str is valid reference point for our cosmic surrounding.
But on a universal level?
What if on a universal level it is wrong? Or not precise enough. A small change can have huge impications. What if there is another constant, etc. now i dont want to open this can of worms again, i should have phrased better.
I am just saying, what if? No judgement intended. And this really is a sidenote, as i obviously havent been clear enough...

reply to post by CaptChaos


Yea, I'm a big fan of the Electric Universe theory. Interesting stuff there. I did purchase the book, The Electric Sky, which was a great read.

Oh great, yet another anonymous internet expert that knows more about theoretical physics than Albert Einstein, yay...

It annoys me that the MODs continue to allow non-scientific threads in the Science forum
I mean the OP even admits it is not science but sheer speculation. Then the OP says something like, "Sooner or later everything gets debunked," which indicates to me that the OP has a very tenuous grasp of science, and possibly doesn't understand the definition of "debunk." Debunking is to prove something thought to be true wrong. If they OP thinks all science eventually gets debunked then that means, following his logic, that all science developed throughout the course of history has been wrong, and will continue to be wrong. But, then, why does all technology based on science function? Nothing should work by his logic, indeed we should all still be living in caves. Einstein's theories have been experimentally validated. Here are a couple of examples Gravity probes support GR Support for SR

Now, with that said...Einstein isn't a god, but decades of evidence have supported his assertions and until strong evidence is shown to consistently, or at least predicatively, violate his ideas then they are the best we have and this thread is simple pseudo-science and should be in Skunk Works.

Hey OP, I think I know where you're coming from...I want FTL too, that's what this is all about am I right or wrong?

reply to post by Threadfall


Reread the last few pages.
It is very enlightening.
I have already admitted it may be phrased harshly, but not wrongly as I do not have emotional attachmet to words.
Just reread.
Then you will understand.
And quit projecting your fantasy onto me.
Just read my comments on this page to seee how wrong your assumptions are.



And this should be in science, since it is totaly acceptable speculation.
Ats will have a hard time explaining if it is moved to skun when cern results are confirmed.
In fact i have it on good authority, the result will be confirmed, they are just trying to come up with something to prop relativity up, or somehow integrate thesE new facts.

And now i dont think science is wrong.
Dont think for me, as i seem to have a better understanding then you.
Its about precision.
Science get more and more precise.
Dont get all emotional about a word - debunk.
Its just a harsher way of saying corrected.
Fantasy illuminatintheories get debunked, but if you want to say it nicely you say they get corrected.
Really the same imho, and the dictionary backs me up,
But lests not start again. Just reread this page if nothing else

reply to post by BBalazs


What you propose is no more science then a flying spaghetti monster. And just because I disagree with your premise does not mean I did not read the thread--to imply so is such a cliched tactic around here (believe it or not people will disagree with you sometimes in life). This still belongs in Skunk Works. But I digress, I guess if you're coming to ATS looking for real science, not pseudo-scientific garbage then you're going to be let down. So I'll drop the issue if the Mods continue to do nothing, oh well. I can go to different websites for true scientific discussions anyway. It still irks me, but whatever.

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by Threadfall

 

Reread the last few pages.
It is very enlightening.

Reread my post where I provide legitimate links to experimental evidence that refutes your assertions and supports GR and SR. It is very enlightening. See, I provide evidence to support my assertions, that is science. You, however, have simply speculated for 7 pages.

Originally posted by Threadfall
Oh great, yet another anonymous internet expert that knows more about theoretical physics than Albert Einstein, yay...

Like I've said before... still waiting for all these people that insist GR and SR are wrong, to explain to me, why the GPS system, that has corrections for GR and SR built-in (plenty of documentation for that), is accurate. If GR and SR didn't work, the GPS systems would have been totally unusable. (vice versa, if GR and SR existed, and it wasn't corrected for in the GPS system, it wouldn't have worked).... For the layman that should be the proof of the pudding, something that some of us use on a daily basis that is very dependent on both SR and GR....
That is not to mention all the other proofs that we have that SR and GR actually exist....

reply to post by Threadfall


You just proved you cannot read.
Quote me where i say gr or str is wrong.
Quote me please.
In fact i said the opposite.
Hallucinating away, are we?

reply to post by Hellhound604


Pls quote me where i said thise things are wrong.
Otherwise keep your ignorant opinions to yourself.
Thank youy

The standard model and the law of relativity will be gone - and the God particle, that is, the Higgs Boson does not exist.


They will understand God (Quantum Field) and Spirit (Energy) more...

and we will further understand the nature of reality / universe.

Einstein Einstein Einstein.


Do you all know what Einstein means in german?

One Stone. (or one "particle")

reply to post by arpgme


Higgs bosom doesnt exist, or is something else entirley.
I DARE anyone to debunk this man:
nohiggs.wordpress.com...

As for te god part, thats just as lame as saying einstein will never be corrected.