Why are we using Relativity in physics?

Question

. Unproven: gravity waves, time-dilation, dark matter, dark energy. Also gravity is a instantaneous phenomenon, that is proven, so relativity's spacetime can not be physical. See: Aberration and the Speed of Gravity (S. Carlip) Relativity is a total failure and is hampering scientific progress. there is also variable lightspeed data from radio astronomy. 

Answer 1

"Why are we using Relativity in physics?"



It works. It lets us understand the Universe displayed.



"Unproven:"



Nothing in Science is *ever* proven. If you want proofs, stick to Religion, Philosophy, Law, or Mathematics.



"gravity waves,"



Big news story this week. Been seen. Still subject to verification.



"time-dilation,"



Measured every day, all over the world.



"dark matter,"



We see it. Locally we know it to be normal matter. We just have more to learn to move "Dark" to the "known" column.



"dark energy."



We see it happening. This used to be the "cosmological constant", but we know it isn't constant over displayed history.



"Also gravity is a instantaneous phenomenon, that is proven,"



Nothing in Science is *ever* proven. If it were truly instantaneous, there could be some logic problems.



"so relativity's spacetime can not be physical."



So what? It is certainly persistent, and as steady as anything we have.



"See: Aberration and the Speed of Gravity (S. Carlip) Relativity is a total failure and is hampering scientific progress. there is also variable lightspeed data from radio astronomy."



So you cite a paper that uses relativity, and then start preaching? You are supposed to be asking questions, not preaching your personal religion.



We use Relativity because it has been tested for more than 100 years, we know where it fails, and it is a useful tool.

Answer 2

Science provides mathematical models of the universe. It does not say that the qualitative interpretation is correct, only that the mathematics will allow you to predict any phenomenon within the bounds of the theory. And relativity does this. Despite what you say, relativity has always been correct within the precision of our ability to measure, and has always told us exactly what will happen within our ability to measure.



Gravity waves are unproven only because the effect is too small for our measurement devices thus far. LIGO is so sensitive it can measure ocean waves across an entire continent, and even then is only at the threshold of being able to measure gravitational events that only happen three or four times a century - and only then with an extreme amount time required to eliminate other possible sources of vibration. In the same way that absence of evidence for God does not prove God does not exist, absence of the ability to measure something is not by itself proof it is not true. Nevertheless, in the past few days scientists have found observational evidence for gravity waves.



Time dilation has been demonstrated over and over. Dark matter and dark energy are not consequences of relativity, so I'm not sure where you are going with that. Relativity does address the fact that gravity seems instantaneous. It says that bodies of mass act as if they bend space-time around them so that anything in the vicinity will be affected by the bent space-time, not directly by the object itself. You can't really test instantaneousity of gravity because you can't move masses around faster than the speed of light in order to test it. I don't know about the variable light speed data, except that articles such as this that are sited as evidence against established theory usually turn out to be from incomplete or misinterpreted data that was later corrected.



Relativity works. It predicts everything it's supposed to predict. Alternative theories have always come up short (measurements don't match the alternative theory predictions but they do match Relativity). We use Relativity every day. Why would we abandon it?



edit:



I just looked at Carlip's paper. He doesn't claim gravity is instantaneous and he doesn't make any statements against the General Theory of Relativity. In fact from what I can see he uses it to support his thesis. The only thing he does claim is that Newtonian theory is incomplete and we already knew that.

Answer 3

Yet another ego that knows better than Einstein! Some of my students occasionally express remarks like yours, but it doesn't take long to show where they are wrong. In your case, I doubt you have the knowledge or training to understand anyway. This is illustrated by the fact you clearly do not know that gravity is a scalar field. Gravity is actually the bending of spacetime by matter. Given that matter cannot be "instantaneously" created, to call gravity also instantaneous is utterly meaningless and not one of Steve Carlip's contentions. Don't make up what you don't understand.

Answer 4

When Einstein published his theories on Special and General Relativity, essentially nobody believed it, because it was just too far out there as a theory. But again and again, the theory has been proven over and over and over again. Most intelligent people who study the field in detail have come over to believing the validity of Relativity theory, but there will probably always be a few stragglers who remain behind the times. You are free to believe whatever you want, of course. Try looking at some of the beautiful gravitational lensing photos from the Hubble space telescope. And try explaining why unstable subatomic particles have their decay slowed substantially when traveling near to the speed of light. Relativity explains these effects beautifully.

But you are always free to offer your alternate explanations. As Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Where is your extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims, kind Sir? I will keep an open mind and hope that you come through with your extraordinary evidence. Until then I for one will still believe in Relativity until then.

Answer 5

Nothing in science or anything is ever proven. If you want proof stick to pure mathematics because only analytical statements can ever be proved.



Evidence for gravity waves:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26610768



Time dilation is not just a fact it's necessary to incorporate time dilation effects to make GPS work. Both special and general relativity claims have been well tested and well and truly confirmed.



Dark matter and dark energy have nothing to do with relativity and is still being investigated.



You have a very loose definition of "proof" if you think "gravity is an instantaneous phenomenon" is proven. How would you possibly prove such a thing when information can't travel faster than light? Furthermore two people in different reference frames (i.e. different gravitational fields) can't agree on the timings of an event or on whether or not two events are simultaneous. This is really basic stuff.



Of course the speed of light is variable - it varies according to the medium it travels through, the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant and the ONLY thing two people in two different reference frames can agree on.



If you want to rubbish relativity you're going to need a heck of a lot more than unsupported statements like you have given.

Answer 6

"Also gravity is a instantaneous phenomenon, that is proven,"



bullsh/t

it hasnt - In fact the contrary -its been proven its NOT instantaneous

(and you REALLY oight to read the book you quote - cos it proves the opposite of what you think it does)



"there is also variable lightspeed data from radio astronomy.  "

yet more bullsh//t

There is data from astronomy but nobody has proved that variations in the speed of light caused any of it

It has been suggested that the speed of ligth has not always been constant

But there is a hellova difference between a suggestion and proof

(except for creation pseudoscientists where a suggestion (or even a fantasy) becomes fact)

Answer 7

Gravity waves, just recently discovered, time dilation has been verified repeatedly with experiments, and the GPS system would not work right without being adjusted to compensate for relativities time dilation. Gravity is not instantaneous, it works at the speed of light. So, you are wrong all over the board.



http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innovation/big-bang-gravitational-waves/



http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html



http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php

Answer 8

I suggest you learn more before you start talking about what you don't understand. Gravity is NOT instantaneous. Just because something is unproven doesn't mean it isn't true. We can still observe it, as we do, in fact, observe the effects of radioactivity. Time dilation, for example, is observed every day in particle accelerators.

Answer 9

The gravity wave has been proven. Time dilation is proven too.



You are not very good at science topics, are you.



Dang! I just sussed you out: You're one of those nutty religious creationists. Thought as much. I suggest you join the other religious nutters in the Religion and Spirituality room.

Answer 10

The 2nd postulate of relativity, i.e. that the speed of light is not source-dependent, is a falsity that was proven wrong back in the sixties when powerful radar signals were bounced off the planet Venus from multiple radar stations around the globe simultaneously. As Bryan G. Wallace showed, signals from the side of the earth rotating towards Venus came back sooner than those from the side rotating away, to a degree that fits source-dependent models: http://www.ritz-btr.narod.ru/wallace.pdf



This suggests that [as common sense would have it] the speed of light is additive, i.e. light emitted from a source with velocity v, will have a velocity of c+v on emission. Light is capable of travelling through space with differing velocities. Wallace's observation refutes relativity but unfortunately, by this time relativity had already become more like a religion than science. No career-minded physicist could be seen to be paying heed to a "relativity-denier", so Wallace's paper did not get the attention it deserved and no further investigation was made. The mainstream scientific community carried on believing in the fallacy that the speed of light is always constant.



Experiments on earth can give the illusion of source-independence but that is due to the EM fields of the earth's matter interfering by normalizing the speed of light from a moving source, i.e. slowing it down to c almost as soon as it is emitted. Astronomical and interplanetary observations reveal light's base nature. It's planet-bound behaviour is a special case.



There have been other astronomical observations that suggest source-dependence, like this: http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=8364

But such observations are seen as some minor curiosity and the theorists will bend over backwards to invent any kind of fantastical nonsense to explain them so that they can avoid ditching relativity.



The time-dilation seen in type 1a supernova is likely down to light being source-dependent too (rather than expanding spacetime!). And, many apparently variable stars may well be binaries in which light bunching is occurring as faster light emitted from a star moving at it's maximum velocity towards us in it's orbit, catches up with slower light it emitted later: http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/binaries.htm



Btw, Einstein himself said: "If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false."

Answer 11

Sorry, but time dilation is proven. It has been measured in accurate clocks on space craft and even (I believe) aircraft. GPS depends on VERY accurate time keeping and I believe the clocks on the GPS satellites have to take time dilation into account to be accurate enough.

Answer 12

Gravity waves prove that Gravitons are real...meaning Gravity is a force...meaning Einstein was wrong... he said Gravity was not a force... so now you know..did you know that E=MC^2 is also wrong ...because of the Hiseburgs uncertainty principal.

That being said it's good to note that quantum fluctuations change everything.. please read up more because there is not enough space to school you on this subject.

Answer 13

Excuse me, it's all been proven satisfactorily to about five sigmas, you're the one with your head in the ground or is it up another area of your biology.

Answer 14

time-dilation HAS been proven though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdRmCqylsME