1

# Strengths and weaknesses of the Theory of Relativity

Fri 10 Aug, 2012 08:14 am
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY

STRENGTHS

1 - The speed of propagation of gravity is not infinite.
2 - The speed of light is absolute (in vacuum).
3 - The time is variable. (For us the becoming is absolute).
4 - The speed of light is the maximum value. (So ​​far recorded).
5 - The energy and mass are equivalent.

WEAKNESSES

1 - All reference frames are equally valid. (Only applies to the speed of light in vacuum).
2 - Time is a dimension of space. (The time is flowing, the space is static, the bodies move in).
3 - It is possible the time travel.
4 - Gravity is not a force.
5 - The cosmological constant.
• Topic Stats
• Top Replies
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 7,150 • Replies: 44
No top replies

sibilia

1
Fri 10 Aug, 2012 09:54 am
@sibilia,
I had posted this subject before in philosophyforums.com, but for reason I can't see it anymore.
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Fri 10 Aug, 2012 10:55 am
@sibilia,
Another of of its weaknesses, Sib, is its inability to explain why the speed of light is c

Another is its failure to provide intuition with a rationale for the ship evidently shrinking in the direction of motion, its apparent increase in mass, and the slowing of its clock

http://able2know.org/topic/187876-1
rosborne979

1
Fri 10 Aug, 2012 11:05 am
@sibilia,
sibilia wrote:

WEAKNESSES

1 - All reference frames are equally valid. (Only applies to the speed of light in vacuum).
2 - Time is a dimension of space. (The time is flowing, the space is static, the bodies move in).
3 - It is possible the time travel.
4 - Gravity is not a force.
5 - The cosmological constant.

Why did you call those things "Weaknesses"?
rosborne979

1
Fri 10 Aug, 2012 11:15 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Another of of its weaknesses, Sib, is its inability to explain why the speed of light is c

"c" is simply the constant assigned to represent the speed of light. There is no mystery or "weakness" in that.

dalehileman wrote:
Another is its failure to provide intuition with a rationale for the ship evidently shrinking in the direction of motion, its apparent increase in mass, and the slowing of its clock.

Are you suggesting that the theory is somehow "weak" simply because it isn't intuitive?
sibilia

1
Fri 10 Aug, 2012 11:16 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Posted by rosborne:
Why did you call those things "Weaknesses"?

Because they do not conform to reality and testing.
rosborne979

1
Fri 10 Aug, 2012 11:32 am
@sibilia,
sibilia wrote:

Quote:
Posted by rosborne:
Why did you call those things "Weaknesses"?

Because they do not conform to reality and testing.

Starting with the first one, can you explain why you don't think it confirms to reality and testing?
sibilia

1
Fri 10 Aug, 2012 01:26 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Posted by rosborne:
Starting with the first one, can you explain why you don't think it confirms to reality and testing?

1- Relativity is based on observable facts and not in real facts.

2- Time is flowing, space is static, the bodies move in it.

3- It's impossible the time travel.

4- Gravity is one of the fundamental forces.

5- Einstein couldn't prove it.
dalehileman

1
Fri 10 Aug, 2012 02:05 pm
@sibilia,
Quote:
1- Relativity is based on observable facts and not in real facts.
Forgive me Sib but what’s the difference between an observable fact and a real one, and why do the former constitute a weakness

Quote:
3- It's impossible the time travel.
Not sure what you mean. When I’m subject to a gravitational field or accelerating I am time-traveling ahead through your domain
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Fri 10 Aug, 2012 02:24 pm
@sibilia,
Quote:
4- Gravity is one of the fundamental forces.
I presume you’re asserting that Einstein didn’t consider gravity a force but you do. However isn’t it purely a semantic issue

Quote:
5- Einstein couldn't prove it.
To this day yes it’s controversial but are you implying that the validity of relativity somehow depends upon it

Sib you need to elaborate a bit
sibilia

1
Fri 10 Aug, 2012 03:13 pm
@dalehileman,
Dalehileman and rosborne. You seem to be a very educated person, something not found in many forums.

Quote:
Forgive me Sib but what’s the difference between an observable fact and a real one, and why do the former constitute a weakness.

The real fact is what actually happens, which we perceive and interpret according to our knowledge (obervable fact). I'm not agnostic.

Quote:
Not sure what you mean. When I’m subject to a gravitational field or accelerating I am time-traveling ahead through your domain.

When, to the past or to the future?
sibilia

1
Fri 10 Aug, 2012 03:20 pm
@sibilia,
Quote:
I presume you’re asserting that Einstein didn’t consider gravity a force but you do. However isn’t it purely a semantic issue.

All right.

Quote:
To this day yes it’s controversial but are you implying that the validity of relativity somehow depends upon it.

Of course not. Don't forget the strength points.

Quote:
Sib you need to elaborate a bit.

OK.
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Fri 10 Aug, 2012 04:19 pm
@sibilia,
Quote:
You seem to be a very educated person, something not found in many forums.
I’m flattered

Quote:
Not sure what you mean. When I’m subject to a gravitational field or accelerating I am time-traveling ahead through your domain.

Quote:
When, to the past or to the future?
Future to be sure as my acceleration speeds up your clock. Time travel to the past entails too much contradiction and paradox
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Fri 10 Aug, 2012 04:28 pm
@rosborne979,
dalehileman wrote:

Another of of its weaknesses, Sib, is its inability to explain why the speed of light is c

Quote:
"c" is simply the constant assigned to represent the speed of light. There is no mystery or "weakness" in that.
I wouldn’t call it a weakness. However I speculate, why should it be c and not some other value

dalehileman wrote:
Another is its failure to provide intuition with a rationale for the ship evidently shrinking in the direction of motion, its apparent increase in mass, and the slowing of its clock.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that the theory is somehow "weak" simply because it isn't intuitive?
No, it’s very strong as its principal tenets have been experimentally verified. However please see

http://able2know.org/topic/187876-1

, suggesting another way of looking at the speed of light, giving those phenomena an intuitive basis
0 Replies

contrex

2
Fri 10 Aug, 2012 04:29 pm
If I had a dollar for every "Einstein was wrong" thread started in pidgin English that I've seen on A2K, I could get my Rainsoft fixed.
dalehileman

1
Fri 10 Aug, 2012 04:34 pm
@contrex,
I hope you don’t mean mine, Con. I don’t disagree with relativity, only proffer another way to interpret our observations. A relativistic view of relativity so to speak
dalehileman

1
Sat 11 Aug, 2012 10:42 am
@dalehileman,
Indeed there are loose ends as Sib suggests. There’s lingering discomfort not only with CC but with the possibility of a “stationary reference frame” and especially with “time at a distance."

http://able2know.org/topic/195798-1
sibilia

1
Sat 11 Aug, 2012 01:43 pm
@dalehileman,
THEORIES THAT COMPLEMENTS TRUTH

1 - Isaac Newton referred to a uniform rhythm time and never thought that this could vary, because
in measuring the pattern should remain unchanged.

2 - For Henri Bergson becoming, that he understood as duration, it is only subjective.

3 - The Albert Einstein's Relativity focuses on the variable rhythm time, which many observers
get different measures. Before time is the absolute becoming. Without the property of becoming no time.

It follows that:

DURATION = BECOMING-TIME DUALITY (ABSOLUTE-RELATIVE)
dalehileman

1
Sat 11 Aug, 2012 03:31 pm
@sibilia,
Sib you obviously understand the jargon much better than the Average Clod (me). “Becoming, “rhythm time,” etc, don’t convey much meaning to us old timers
0 Replies

mark noble

1
Sat 11 Aug, 2012 04:35 pm
Einstein developed his theory to conform to the Maxwell-Lorentz EM theory, which he regarded as fact, believing the defect in Newton's system was as he had assumed. On inadequate grounds, that the time by the clock of a remote event had a unique value, yet neglecting to say how that value could be determined. Newton's kinematics assumed that the value at the distant event was the same shown by a terrestrial clock. Lorentz challenged this, postulating that the motion of the clock through the ether changed its rate; But Einstein, DISCARDING the ether, fell back on an assumption that the distant event had a unique instance of occurence, claiming the right to determine such an instant in a form that conformed to existing EM theory without violating relativity of motion.
Genius? Not at all.
Hasn't disproved Newton - and is not consistent because it requires each of two clocks to work steadily faster than the other, which is impossible.
Newtonian mechanics according to Einstein is wrong.

Contrary to popular belief there is no evidence concerning the special relativity theory as propounded, because no experiment has been, or can be, made in a force-free space.

Mathematical theorists have become increasingly abstract, to the extent that multi-dimensional universes have been accepted as reality with no physical evidence of their existence.

### Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek

1. Forums
2. » Strengths and weaknesses of the Theory of Relativity