After 100 years, Einstein's theory stands test of time

October 20, 2015 by Jean-Louis Santini
Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921
Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921

Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity is about to celebrate its 100th anniversary, and his revolutionary hypothesis has withstood the test of time, despite numerous expert attempts to find flaws.

"Einstein changed the way we think about the most basic things, which are space and time. And that opened our eyes to the universe, and how the most interesting things in it work, like black holes," said David Kaiser, professor of the history of science, technology and society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Einstein, a celebrated German-born theoretical physicist who spent the final years of his life at Princeton University in the northeastern United States, presented his theory on November 25, 1915 before the Prussian Academy of Science.

The document was published in March 1916 in a journal called Annalen der Physik.

The general theory of relativity was among the most revolutionary in history; it marked a major leap from the law of universal gravitation put forth by Sir Isaac Newton in 1687.

Einstein believed that "space and time are not fixed, which was what others had thought, but are flexible, dynamic phenomena like other processes of the universe," said Michael Turner, director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics.

"So space bends and time warps, and it was a whole new way at looking at gravity."

Einstein had put forth a more restrained version of his theory in 1905, the special theory of relativity, which left out gravity but described the relationship between space and time. It held that the speed of light is the same in a vacuum, and the laws of physics do not change regarding inert objects.

Precursor to GPS

He also came up with his famous equation, E=mc2, which says that energy equals mass times the speed of light in a vacuum, squared. In other words, mass and energy are the same but in different forms.

Ten years later, the general theory of relativity offered a larger and more explanatory vision, adding gravity's role in the space-time continuum.

Therefore, time would move more slowly in proximity to a powerful gravitational field, such as that of a planet in the void of space.

In this NASA artist's illustration turbulent winds of gas swirl around a black hole. Albert Einstein's general theory of relativ
In this NASA artist's illustration turbulent winds of gas swirl around a black hole. Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity stated that space and time could not escape from a black hole's huge gravitational field.

This relationship has been verified by comparing two atomic clocks, one on Earth and the other in a high-altitude airplane where it shows a slight delay.

Global positioning systems (GPS) are an application of this phenomenon.

Satellites have clocks that are precisely adjusted to account for this time difference, otherwise GPS would not be able to function.

The oldest existing manuscript written by Albert Einstein on his theory of relativity and the revolutionary equation E=mc2
The oldest existing manuscript written by Albert Einstein on his theory of relativity and the revolutionary equation E=mc2

According to the theory of general relativity, light is also warped by powerful gravitational fields, which British astronomer Arthur Eddington confirmed with his observations on the deflections of starlight by the Sun in 1919.

Einstein also predicted that stars at the end of their lives would collapse under their own gravity.

Their external envelope would explode in a supernova while their heart would form a very dense object known as a neutron star, or a rapidly spinning pulsar.

They could also transform into a black hole, which such a huge gravitational field that space and time could not escape.

According to Einstein, these celestial bodies, given their masses, should provoke waves in space time much like a thrown stone causes ripples in water.

These are the gravitational waves that astronomers hope to observe first-hand.

String theory

Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity helped with our understanding of the relationship between space and time
Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity helped with our understanding of the relationship between space and time

This would "confirm one of the last great but as yet untested predictions from Einstein, equation that space and time are not really dynamical but they can ripple, like the surface of a pond," said Kaiser.

Instruments have been designed to capture this phenomenon, including the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) in the United States and VIRGO, a gravitational wave detector in Italy in Europe.

An enormous challenge remains—to reconcile the general theory of relativity with quantum physics, the two big pillars of modern physics.

Quantum physics, contrary to relativity, perfectly describes phenomena on an atomic level and has numerous applications, from transistors to computers.

Turner said the most popular theory for reconciling the two is string theory, which holds that particles are not the fundamental building blocks of matter but are elastic strings that vibrate at different frequencies.

Atomic clocks designed to work in space have helped prove Albert Einstein's theory that time moves more slowly in proximity to a
Atomic clocks designed to work in space have helped prove Albert Einstein's theory that time moves more slowly in proximity to a powerful gravitational field

"String theory might answer that deep question of what space and time are," Turner told AFP.

"It suggests it could be extra dimensions and that the number of dimensions of space and time could change," he added.

"And if you take the most extravagant view of that, maybe space and time did not exist and they emerged from something else."

Turner described string theory as an "empty vessel," and added: "the great thing about an empty vessel is that we can put our hopes and dreams in it."

"We are now ready for the next Einstein to open our eyes a little more."

Explore further: Clumped galaxies give General Relativity its toughest test yet

Related Stories

11-year cosmic search leads to black hole rethink

September 24, 2015

One hundred years since Einstein proposed gravitational waves as part of his general theory of relativity, an 11-year search performed with CSIRO's Parkes telescope has failed to detect them, casting doubt on our understanding ...

The golden anniversary of black-hole singularity

October 1, 2015

When a star collapses forming a black hole, a space-time singularity is created wherein the laws of Physics no longer work. In 1965 Sir Roger Penrose presented a theorem where he associated that singularity with so-called ...

Recommended for you

Building with flexible blocks

July 27, 2016

On an apparently normal cube a pattern of hollows and bulges appears when the cube is compressed. Physicists from Dutch FOM Institute AMOLF and Leiden University together with colleagues from Tel Aviv University have developed ...

Realizing quantum bits

July 26, 2016

In computers of the future, information might be stored in the form of quantum bits. But how can a quantum bit be realised?

75 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

vlaaing peerd
4.3 / 5 (26) Oct 20, 2015
Obviously they haven't heard of the phenomenon called "Phys.org-posters" yet, able to debunk any theory with Electric universes, aether waves or dense cheeseholes and while they're at it throw in a working fusion reactor as well.

"Phys.org-posters - debunking science myths and frauds since phys.org"
docile
Oct 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SuperThunder
2.9 / 5 (13) Oct 20, 2015
I read somewhere (maybe here) that they found a measurable difference between gravity and other kinds of acceleration in the contraction of spacetime. Would someone not a rabid earth murdering schizophrenic religious fanatic explain the ramifications of that to me, I'm very interested, but don't want to wade through word salad and extinctionspeak from the local moon-howlers.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 20, 2015
I read somewhere (maybe here) that they found a measurable difference between gravity and other kinds of acceleration in the contraction of spacetime.

It would mean that there is a difference between gravitational and inertial mass. (If you can find a link where you got this idea from I'd be interested. At least wikipedia says "Although inertial mass, passive gravitational mass and active gravitational mass are conceptually distinct, no experiment has ever unambiguously demonstrated any difference between them.")

If such a difference existed we could establish an absolute frame of reference (which would nix Relativity)
vlaaing peerd
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2015
"Therefore, time would move more slowly in proximity to a powerful gravitational field, such as that of a planet in the void of space.
This relationship has been verified by comparing two atomic clocks, one on Earth and the other in a high-altitude airplane where it shows a slight delay."

Then the clock in high altitude wouldn't show a delay but instead would tick a little faster, wouldn't it?

docile
Oct 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
someone11235813
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2015
It held that the speed of light is the same in a vacuum, and the laws of physics do not change regarding inert objects.


Never write science articles while drunk.

SuperThunder
2.2 / 5 (11) Oct 20, 2015
I can't find it, it hit the science sites for a day then promptly disappeared down the internet suck-hole. I'm just going to say I was wrong and it doesn't exist.

Once again google is useless to my memory of anything at all. Teeth grindingly infuriating, because it blew my mind and I had no one to talk to about it.
docile
Oct 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SuperThunder
2.4 / 5 (10) Oct 20, 2015
Yeah, my moon-howler caveat still applies.
bluehigh
2.6 / 5 (9) Oct 20, 2015
I remember reading that report too. Not gonna look for it though, likely pointless. It was either a mistaken result and somehow removed from public consumption or hidden to preserve the informational status quo. You decide. Either way Einsteinism rules.

SuperThunder
2.6 / 5 (9) Oct 20, 2015
I imagine further testing didn't hold up or something. It was probably a statistical error, but the damned article had charts, graphs, and no end to how important it was. I'm very angry that I can't find it now. I wish there was a search engine, like google, that actually was a search engine and not a broken ad server (seriously, if you're a beginner coder you can tell immediately that google search is intentionally broken). I love that if I search "gravity mass inertia" the results are all "mass equivalence," but if you do a search for "mass equivalence" you get back nonsense. I hate you, google, I seriously wish you didn't exist.

I'm done ranting.
bluehigh
3.6 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2015
Happy Birthday to Relativity, Happy Birthday to . Um Happy Anniversary to Relativity, Happy Anniversary to you ... Oops not yet .. wait another few weeks.
arom
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2015
Turner said the most popular theory for reconciling the two is string theory, which holds that particles are not the fundamental building blocks of matter but are elastic strings that vibrate at different frequencies.

"It suggests it could be extra dimensions and that the number of dimensions of space and time could change," he added.

"And if you take the most extravagant view of that, maybe space and time did not exist and they emerged from something else."


While waiting for the fruitful from the MAGIC of string theory; maybe this understandable idea (with the familiar particles of the building blocks of matter, normal space and time without extra dimensions) could help to visualize ….
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
Doug_Huffman
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2015
Science is falsifiable, mere technology is validated. No one will look for falsifiability. The Standard Models of particle physics and cosmology are not falsifiable, but vastly validated.

In infinite time all possibilities are realized, only in this causal *u*niverse is this not so.
bluehigh
3.3 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2015
A quick look did not find experimental evidence of violation of the equivalence 'theory'.

Theoretically from a math point of view there's arguments against its validity.

Eg:
http://www.journa...6/Lo.pdf

"It is interesting to note that the earliest experimental support of Einstein's equivalence principle would be the Michelson- Morley experiment."

also more doubt here ... http://arxiv.org/...3083.pdf

Experimental evidence article still not found. I give up. Lost the plot.
docile
Oct 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2015
I wish there was a search engine, like google, that actually was a search engine and not a broken ad server

Try google scholar
https://scholar.google.de

bluehigh
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2015
"Dark matter is attracted to perimeter of massive bodies, not into their center."

Piqued my curiosity. Please explain.
Benni
3 / 5 (11) Oct 20, 2015
A quick look did not find experimental evidence of violation of the equivalence 'theory'.
For example, the dark matter violates the equivalence principle. Dark matter is attracted to perimeter of massive bodies, not into their center.


It isn't just DM that is not attracted to the center of "massive bodies", that is the point where there is the least mass & therefore the least gravity of any body of mass. The gravity field of all bodies of mass are maximum at the surface, any point above or below the surface is subject to the Inverse Square Law in which gravity diminishes based upon the distance it is measured from the surface.
Hat1208
4 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2015
@Benni

So things weigh less underground or in an airplane.
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2015
Quote from article: "Einstein believed that "space and time are not fixed, which was what others had thought, but are flexible, dynamic phenomena like other processes of the universe," said Michael Turner, director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics."

While it is almost universally accepted that nothing violates relativity I think there is room to question whether that is true or not. The Sagnac Effect and the CBR both seem to indicate there just might be a fixed frame of reference.

An interesting experiment that I would like to see carried out would be the test the one way velocity of light in opposite directions and compare those results to the velocity relative to the CBR. With today's atomic clocks we should be able to do this in space.
rossim22
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2015
"Attempts to find flaws..." ? The flaws are there, unfalsifiable ad hoc hypotheses cover these up. Pretty sure nobody's definitively proved that God cannot exist yet I am still not a believer.

This entire article is simply an appeal to authority.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (14) Oct 20, 2015
Pretty sure nobody's definitively proved that God cannot exist yet I am still not a believer.


"Gods do not exist" is the null hypothesis. Until someone comes up with a proof that shows that the null hypothesis isn't valid there's no reason to believe in any gods.

If someone is asking you to "disprove god" it just shows that they haven't understood the scientific process (in more ways than one)
docile
Oct 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
shavera
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2015
billpress11: Don't confuse the CBR with a 'fixed' frame of reference. It's just a convenient one.

Let's say I'm in a car, and a cop clocks me as going 15 over the speed limit. I can say "no officer, I was at rest" or "Officer, I was travelling against the Earth's rotation, so you were really going faster than me" or a number of other arguments about reference frames.

But we choose, as a *convenient* rest frame for this measurement, that the surface of the Earth we are at is (more-or-less) at rest and partially inertial (neglecting gravitation for the moment).

The CBR is the same. It's convenient, in that all observers throughout the universe should be able to measure their velocity w.r.t the CBR, and in so doing can compare their velocities directly to each other, but it's no more "fixed" than the surface of the Earth is a "fixed" reference frame.
shavera
4.4 / 5 (12) Oct 20, 2015
appeal to authority


I don't know if there's a "fallacy of appealing to the wrong fallacy" but plenty of people are guilty of getting 'appeal to authority' totally wrong. If the 'authority' was totally speaking without argument to defend their statement, then it's an appeal to authority.

But in this case, a *host* of experiments have supported the 'authority's' position on relativity. We see gravity deflect light, we see gravity shift light's frequency, we see objects in motion live longer and shrink along the axis of their motion, we see clocks run at different rates when subject to different speeds and different gravitational conditions, we see relativistic beaming. And so on and so on.

So it's not an appeal to authority when the authority has a ton of evidence to support their position.
shavera
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 20, 2015
What you may be confused about is that GR has a limited scope of explanation. It *only* explains how measures of space and time vary in the vicinity of energy, and with relative motion. One of the *consequences* of this explanation is gravitation and extensions of "Newtonian" gravitation to both be more accurate (Mercury) and cover more phenomena (gravity and light). Another consequence is to describe whether the universe is expanding or shrinking and at what rate, but this value is dependent upon the makeup of that universe. (relative mass and energy and pressure density ratios)

What GR does not tell us is "what is the stuff in our universe." GR doesn't care whether matter is baryonic or not, its mass will bend light all the same. GR doesn't care whether we've labelled all the kinds of energy in our universe or not, energy will drive expansion of the universe.

So when you hear scientists speak of 'dark' matter and energy, all they're saying is "we don't know everything yet."
billpress11
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2015
Shavera, I understand what you are saying. Where I find a contradiction is that Einstein dismissed the concept of a "preferred or fixed" frame of reference, but he then went on to state the speed of light was alway the same in any direction regardless of the motion of the light source. I agree with that totally. But doesn't that make the speed of light a fixed reference point? The measured velocity and the actual velocity would not be the same, the Sagnac Effect shows us that in moving objects. By measuring light's velocity in two or more direction from a moving source we should be able to establish a preferred frame of reference. And if it was the same as the earth's movement in the CBR it would only add further evidence.
SuperThunder
2 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2015
@antialias Thank you! I put the term "biologically uninformed" in Google Scholar and got ZERO results! A right successful search if you ask me.

Anyway, to commemorate the anniversary, here is for everyone to read "Relativity" by the kind old Time Lord himself. This is one of my favorite books, as a critical thinker and a philosopher of life.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/
arnold_townsend
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2015
There are a number of misleading statements in this article, to the point one gets the feeling the author(s) did not really know the subject well or could not explain it in a more exact way.

First, "inert object"? Did you mean "inertial reference frame"? I doubt "inert object" has become a suitable synonym for "inertial reference frame" and there is a very big difference in what the two concepts convey. You really flubbed this one and it gives someone not familiar with relativity a very bad start.

Second, Einstein did not "predict" black holes -- they were a consequence of certain solutions to GR's field equations. Schwarzchild worked out one solution to the GR (GR's field equations are differential equations) which contained what later became known as the "event horizon". While Einstein seemed to enjoy theoretical explorations of exotic solutions to his field equations (see wormholes etc), he did not personally believe a "black hole" was an actual, physical thing.
docile
Oct 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2015
Triangular Prism in a relativistic reference frame says "hi".

Headline:
4th grade science experiment proves Lorentz transformation wrong for at least some situations. Einstein's abstract mass over-simplistic.

in one reference frame, visile light appears to pass through the prism.

in the other reference frame (according to lorentz transformation) the wavelength of the light is infrared, and should get bounced off the glass of the prism....which is an absurd contradiction.

The only reason Relativity hasn't been disproven is because the physics community bans people like me, who point out obvious was to disprove it, which have never been tested.

I was able to show another scenario where the speed of light postulate in one reference frame, combined with the Lorentz transformation, forces the speed of light in another reference frame to be infinite, which contradicts the original postulate.
bschott
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 20, 2015
Thank you for the clarifications Arnold and Zeph. The time lord would be turning in his grave if he could see what they have done with his theory.

SuperThunder - Check out Einstein's "The evolution of Physics", he was always on the right track...the Mainstream just didn't like his chosen direction later in his career.
docile
Oct 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2015
I wish there was a search engine, like google, that actually was a search engine and not a broken ad server

Try google scholar
https://scholar.google.de
@AA_P
@SuperT
also try https://duckduckgo.com/

you may also be able to still use Lycos and Bigfoot, and try to cross references your results, which might actually be fruitful as you narrow the search parameters?

when you actually run across those type articles, you should consider posting the address/link in an *.rtf or other doc on your HD
or open a thread in a protected place like Sapo's Joint or SciForums (where moderators can delete the moon-howlers)
Hyperfuzzy
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2015
It only demonstrates the stupidity of mankind, none of his theory makes any sense. The photoelectric effect does not require GR. GR is simply nonsense! Since no one seems to see this, then the human race is simply foolish, excuse me non-theoretical-physicist! The speed of light is an unknown and may have any value, "How fast does a wavelet pass?" Particles create waves and are not waves. Anti-matter from a cloud chamber!? Really? Gluons? What!? Lack of understanding of the neutron! Theoretical physicists are either the biggest fools are creative thieves! Gravity, obviously a superposition of the fields! Failure to think is the cause of the "waste". Universities teaching phony theory as fact?! Why? No questions over the obvious nonsense! Seems like a "Belief" system. I prefer total rejection of modern physics created by those without proper tools or proper experimentation and without ever providing a logical proof for the non-sense. Change time??
Hyperfuzzy
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2015
mass, particle, really? LOL
Benni
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2015
@Benni

So things weigh less underground or in an airplane.


.......apply the Inverse Square Law exactly as I described.
SuperThunder
1.2 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2015
Hyperfuzzy, the gravitational constant is not 420.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2015
"Therefore, time would move more slowly in proximity to a powerful gravitational field, such as that of a planet in the void of space.
This relationship has been verified by comparing two atomic clocks, one on Earth and the other in a high-altitude airplane where it shows a slight delay."

Then the clock in high altitude wouldn't show a delay but instead would tick a little faster, wouldn't it?


Applying the Inverse Square Law to the Einstein Field Equations & you would be correct, they would tick faster in accordingly.
SkyLy
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2015
Who needs Einstein, i have invented a perpetual motion machine. Prepare to dismantle every Nuclear reactor on earth when i'll deploy my invention. It involves the use of a battery connected to the sector to make the motion, so it works day and night, 365/365.
Hat1208
4 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2015
@bschott

There is something I will probably never see in the same sentence again, "clarification" and "Benni and Zeph".
bschott
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2015
@bschott

There is something I will probably never see in the same sentence again, "clarification" and "Benni and Zeph".


Arnold and Benni are the same poster? Neat.

From years of reading Zeph's posts, he has more clever insights and fundamentally correct observations than most of the posters. He also has completely off the wall ideas sometimes but he's human just like the rest of us, at least he never proposed 4/5 of the matter in the universe is undetectable other than generating gravity exactly where it is needed just so the math of AWT could still work.

Imagine the lambasting if he did though.....I mean if someone else hadn't proposed it already and garnered a - - -different reaction.
swordsman
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2015
I provided proof of the flaw in Einstein's theory years ago. His theory was based on electromagnetic radiation being radial in nature. This is quite incorrect. My proof was presented at the IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium 2003, wherein the plots of antenna waves actually bend, thus having transverse properties. These transverse waves travel much faster than the speed of light and are definitely not spherical. In fact, the 1936 model of antenna radiation shows the same thing when plotted!
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2015
@bschott

There is something I will probably never see in the same sentence again, "clarification" and "Benni and Zeph".

Arnold and Benni are the same poster? Neat.


Yep "neat". At least there's more than just a couple of us posting to this site who have actually studied the mathematical derivations Einstein undertook in coming up with General Relativity & his Field Equations.

Hat1208
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2015
@Benni

There is quite a difference between study and understand.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2015
@Benni

There is quite a difference between study and understand.

Actually "study & comprehend" is a better way of stating it.
Hat1208
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2015
@Benni
There is nothing better about it. Understand and comprehend are synonyms.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2015
@Benni
There is nothing better about it. Understand and comprehend are synonyms.

............"comprehend" carries a deeper meaning.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2015
"comprehend" carries a deeper meaning
@benjiTROLL
lets examine that

comprehend
verb (used with object)
1. to understand the nature or meaning of; grasp with the mind; perceive
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/comprehend

understand
verb (used with object), understood, understanding.
1. to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/understand

lets see: they both use EACH OTHER in the definition, thus, by that very definition and use, we can state that they are synonymous
but that's not all!
http://www.thesau...tand?s=t

http://www.thesau...hend?s=t

the very first synonym for each word is the OTHER

WOW... never before have i seen more gibberish than your "interpretations" of reality based upon your claims of authority and higher education (see also: https://en.wikipe...r_effect )

Thanks for demonstrating this over and over
Hat1208
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2015
@Captain Stumpy

Thanks for the comprehension and for understanding.
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2015
Hyperfuzzy, the gravitational constant is not 420.

Correct, the universal constant is not constant, it's a function of the center of "mass", I prefer +&- charge centers; also 420 is more fun.
TimLong2001
not rated yet Oct 21, 2015
Time is a metrical scale we establish -- not substantial. Though Space contains energy and matter ("mattergy"), it is a vast void of nothingness -- a mere receptacle with no characteristics other than extension (not necessarily Cartesian) and endlessness (?). Larger and larger scales, and likely the same for smaller and smaller scales (sans Planck Length restrictions), indicate deterministic complexity mimicking randomness (like in nonlinear "Chaos" Theory). The massive particles (including those of minuscule quantum mass) are warped by fields in space -- nothing more (sorry sci fi fans! No time machines either).
SuperThunder
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2015
Hyperfuzzy, your weed dealer lied to you, it's 6.674×10−11 N⋅m2/kg2.
SuperThunder
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2015
Woops, phys.org, of all places, didn't format the exponents on that. Not that you would have caught it.
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2015
@ Bennie-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

I took your advisement and started trying to learn to do these differential equation things you are so fond of pretending you know about. But can you tell how this thing here cyphers out? I am stumped, but I am not the nuclear engineer like you aren't either.

D(ư) ≡ 0 where D ≡ λ/λ(x1) + λ/λ(x2) ·

Hyperfuzzy
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2015
First realize that mathematics seeks to explain reality via an isomorphic space defined empirically, not a definition of what you think is reality; but, something that allows provability, i.e. Formal Logic. Present modern physics is far outside of formal anything! Math is not reality, therefore isomorphism must be provable!

Since we are on Dr. E's nonsense, consider the time derivative of m*r, or better yet, with m = mo/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) then define momentum or force. Note the integral of force used to be momentum. Or start from the bottom up. What is d(mr)/dt, something foolish? Newton would get mdr/dt, what does Dr. E get that is not nonsensical or a need to redefine Newton's calculus, or momentum and conservation!?

This is only a cursory view. But I guess, with Dr. E's logic, this should be ignored as well as the deviations upon the measurements of G. When m is not a constant, the rocket equation would yield mdr/dt + r dm/dt = P, mass released by the rocket as a rate.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2015
@ Fuzzy-Skippy. How you are too Cher? I am good, not a care in the world, thanks for asking.

Was that what you just wrote meant to come to me? Or are you asking Bennie-Skippy for some help too with your homework like I was?

Maybe you can help me, so maybe you would take a lookie-loo at what I wrote for Bennie-Skippy. I am trying to get to the 2nd derivative and the 3rd derivative too.
Uncle Ira
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2015
P.S. for you Hyper-Skippy. Maybe I can help with one of your questions. But understand I am not the real scientist like a lot of other geniuses here are not either. Choot, I am not even a regular genius.

Newton would get mdr/dt, what does Dr. E get that is not nonsensical or a need to redefine Newton's calculus, or momentum and conservation!?


Newton-Skippy did what he could with what he could see and experience when he was alive. The Einstein-Skippy had a lot more information and stuffs to work with that Newton did not have.

If Newton-Skippy came along at the same time as Einstein-Skippy maybe he would be the person getting talked about here. All the smart monies is on Einstein taking things a little more complete than Newton, not that Newton was wrong, he just have not yet seen and measured the things Einstein's podnas were seeing and measuring.

Bet smart or not is your choice.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2015
@Captain Stumpy Thanks for the comprehension and for understanding


Were it not for Copy & Paste, he would never have anything to post. Hey, El Stumpo, give a try for the Differential Equations that are found within the topic under discussion here, Einstein's General Relativity.

You who have never seen a Differential Equation you could solve, supposing you provide us with some thoughtful insight as to why Einstein used so many Partial Differential Equations for developing his thesis on General Relativity, after all GR is the topic under discussion here. Or maybe you didn't realize that? Most likely you didn't realize it, you're too Partial to name calling.

When should we expect a dissertation of your comprehension of this level of science & math? When you present it, just remember words like "troll", "moron", and body part nether regions do not appear in Einstein's GR, but of course how would you know that because you've never read it, much less studied any of it.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2015
Hey, El Stumpo, give a try for the Differential Equations that are found within the topic under discussion here, Einstein's General Relativity
@benjiTROLL
as a gentleman i've always said "Ladies first" so you get first crack in demonstrating your prowess in math here... but i hope you do better than your attempts in the following threads:
in here, you couldn't do ODE's at all & didn't speak the math lingo
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

in here, you couldn't even do basic math or figure out ANY astronomy terminology, easily researched
http://phys.org/n...als.html

Ira caught you too
http://phys.org/n...sts.html

http://phys.org/n...ial.html

and furlong
http://phys.org/n...ate.html

so, when are you going to demonstrate anything but stupidity?

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2015
@old windBenji TROLLING still
after all GR is the topic under discussion here
so why are you whining about how no one knows PDE's or ODE's but you? after all, considering the links above, you have never once been able to demonstrate knowledge of either PDE's OR ODE's... you only like to throw around the words like you know what they mean!
when will you PROVE you know what they mean?
When should we expect a dissertation of your comprehension of this level of science & math?
right after you prove yourself
but i doubt that will happen, because it will require you to demonstrate knowledge you haven't shown
how would you know that because you've never read it, much less studied any of it
at least i can actually read English and comprehend what is being written (see above)

you've yet to be able ot offer ANY cogent remarks other than "ROC" or whining about ODE's... which, again, you've never been able to demonstrate knowledge of

thanks for playing, ms benji
docile
Oct 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PhysicsMatter
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2015
Einstein General Relativity was erroneous from the beginning, since his universe collapsed on itself and hence he came up with artificial cosmological constant accepting contemporary cosmological view that universe is stationary. After Hubble discovery of expanding universe he was trying to get rid of K and failed. Except for few conjecture points the theory is unverifiable directly and requires huge unverifiable assumption. GTR is a historical artifact from which standard model was partially developed, the model that is being challenged now by the data.

You may read here a brief story of SR and GRT:

https://questforn...ativity/
Egleton
1 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2015
Love the man. Not so keen on his ideas.
It is unsupported by the empirical evidence.
http://www.newton...ion.html
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2015
@ Stumpy
Experience shows that there is no way to talk sense into, or get rid of, whatever lurks behind the alias "Benni".
Stop feeding the troll, put "Benni" on ignore and discuss physics.
In that context, what is this article about ? Einstein is mentioned in the title to attract the trolls, but what news is reported?
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2015
Einstein General Relativity was erroneous from the beginning, since ...

Well ... It nicely explains Mercury's orbital precession and correctly predicts the bending of light by gravity, the slowing down of time in a gravitational field.

If YOU can do better than that, publish and get a Noble prize.
Ach so, you can not? Then remove your posts.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2015
I am a bit wary. At the end of the article it includes String Theory and we all know that SST has problems of its own to sort out if it is going to come up with something testable. I haven't seen anything coming to the fore since around 2004 (Kiritsis) so I wonder if the article is trying give D-Brane grav theory another push.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2015
I am a bit wary. At the end of the article it includes String Theory and we all know that SST has problems of its own to sort out if it is going to come up with something testable. I haven't seen anything coming to the fore since around 2004 (Kiritsis) so I wonder if the article is trying give D-Brane grav theory another push.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2015
@ Stumpy
Experience shows that there is no way to talk sense into, or get rid of, whatever lurks behind the alias "Benni".
@My2
yep. i don't respond as much to B as you think. just like to remind people occasionally that for all his big talk, he still has yet to produce anything here but a claim: including his abject failures at math
Thanks for the reminder though
what is this article about ?
rhetorical, right?
SR/GR is heavily tested and proven, and fits best with observations, but in all honesty, like Mimath, i am a mite concerned with String theory.
Mostly because of the whole testing and validation thing... https://en.wikipe...g_theory

sure, it can be powerful in explaining things, but it's still not tested, AFAIK
(feel free to link some evidence if i am wrong, i appreciate it)
I don't know of any tests which validate it: but i don't search out it's tests/studies, either

just offered IMHO, anyway

@Mimath:
posting problems?

Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2015

I don't know of any tests which validate it: but i don't search out it's tests/studies, either

just offered IMHO, anyway

@Mimath:
posting problems?


Try common sense. The mathematical and physical errors within SR/GR & the Standard Model are obvious. But if you don't know Formal logic and Topology, I understand. By the way, sense Newtons mass is simply a constant formed empirically to satisfy "falling apples", do you think physicists have gone too far?
SuperThunder
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2015
Is this still going? Come on, you can see Relativity in nature. Look there, there it is! It does tricks for your amusement!

https://www.youtu...lBIcHre0
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2015
@Captain Stumpy 'posting problems'. I'm not sure whether it's my 'mouse' acting like a double click sometimes or whether it is due to interference. When I checked my post, as I generally do, there was just one...now there is two. Where I live there are a lot of internet problems over gov plans to introduce internet control and there are hackers protesting. Couldn't access email the other day.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.